Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

9.1 Unit 7, 117 (Lot: 61; STR: 32978) Brisbane Street, Perth: Proposed Amendment to Condition of Previous Approval: Change of Use from Office to Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms)

TRIM Ref: D18/8348

Author: Alice Harford, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward: South

Precinct: 13 – Beaufort

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2. Attachment 2 - Previous Approval 5.2016.412.1

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application to amend development approval 5.2016.412.1 granted on 7 February 2017 for a Change of Use from Office to Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms) at Unit 7, No. 117 (Lot: 61; STR: 32987) Brisbane Street, Perth subject to the following condition:

1. All conditions and advice notes detailed on development approval 5.2016.412.1 granted on 7 February 2017 included in Attachment 2 continue to apply to this approval, with the exception of the following:

1.1. Deletion of Condition 3.4.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend a condition of the existing development approval for Non-Medical Consulting Rooms at Unit 7, 117 Brisbane Street, Perth (subject site), in order to remove the time limit on the approval and grant permanent approval for the use.

Background:

Landowner:	Indo-Raya Holdings Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Jing Yin Jheng
Date of Application:	9 January 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban TPS1: Zone: Residential/Commercial R Code: R80 LPS2: Zone: Residential/Commercial R Code: R80
Built Form Area:	Mixed Use
Existing Land Use:	Office
Proposed Use Class:	Unlisted Use – Non Medical Consulting Rooms
Site Area:	100m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Not applicable
Heritage List:	No

The subject lot has frontage to both Brisbane Street and Robinson Street, Perth, with Unit 7 fronting onto Brisbane Street. The site is zoned Residential/Commercial and has a density of R80 under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1).

The subject site contains a two storey building which is comprised of 62 commercial tenancies operating as a mix of shops, offices and showrooms.

The adjoining properties to the east share the same zoning as the subject site. The adjoining properties to the west are zoned Commercial. All of the properties that adjoin the subject site contain a variety of commercial uses. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

Council at its meeting on 7 February 2017 granted temporary approval for a Change of Use from Office to Non-Medical Consulting Rooms for Unit 7, with Condition 3.4 of this approval limiting the period of approval to 12 months. Since this time, the City has received no complaints in relation to the approved use.

The current application seeks approval to delete Condition 3.4 of the previous development approval to allow the ongoing use of the site as Non-Medical Consulting Rooms.

The business offers dermal and beauty type therapies and treatments such as skin laser treatments, lip and eyebrow tattooing, hair removal and skin rejuvenation which does not align with the definition of Consulting Rooms in TPS1. The services offered also do not relate to the investigation or treatment of physical or mental injuries or ailments, and as a result the development is considered to align with the definition of Non-Medical Consulting Room in the City’s Policy No 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms as follows:

“any building or part thereof used in the practise of a qualified beauty technician, touch therapist, natural massage or the like but does not include massage activity of a sexual nature, prostitution, brothel business, an agency business associated with prostitution, escort agency business or the like.”

The use is considered to fall within this definition, which is an ‘Unlisted Use’ in TPS1.

The proposal does not involve any changes to what was previously approved through development application 5.2016.412.1. This approval letter and approved plans are included as Attachment 2.

DETAIL

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of TPS1, the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Land Use		ü
Parking & Access		ü
Bicycle Facilities		ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council is as follows:

Street Setback
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Town Planning Scheme No. 1 ‘P’ Use	Unlisted Use – Non Medical Consulting Rooms
Parking and Access
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access 4 car parking bays required for Unit 7 2 bicycle bays required for Unit 7	2 car parking bays provided Nil provided

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 19 January 2018 to 2 February 2018. The method of community consultation included advertising the proposal on the City’s website and letters sent to owners and occupiers within close proximity to the subject site (see Attachment 1), in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

There were no submissions received during the advertising period.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC: No

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms; and

· Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (Draft LPS2)

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (Draft LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The Schedule of Modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to the Draft LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard, the Draft LPS2 should be given due regard as part of the determination of this application.

The modifications will impact the subject property by changing the zoning of the land from Residential/Commercial to Mixed Use. The objectives for the Mixed Use zone do not significantly depart from the objectives of the Residential/Commercial zone which were previously endorsed by Council. The Draft LPS2 sets out the following objectives for the Mixed Use zone:

· “To provide for a wide variety of active uses on street level which are compatible with residential and other non-active uses on upper levels.

· To allow for the development of a mixed of varied but compatible land uses such as housing, offices, showrooms, amusement centres, eating establishments and appropriate industrial activities which do not generate nuisances detrimental to the amenity of the district or to the health, welfare and safety of its residents.

· To provide for a compatible mix of high density residential and commercial development.

· To promote residential use as a vital and integral component of these mixed use zones.

· To ensure development design incorporates sustainability principles, with particular regard to waste management and recycling and including, but not limited to, solar passive design, energy efficiency and water conservation.

· To ensure the provision of a wide range of different types of residential accommodation, including affordable, social and special needs, to meet the diverse needs of the community.”

Under LPS2, the proposal would fall under the land use definition of a ‘Shop,’ which is defined as the following:

“means premises other than a bulky goods showroom, a liquor store – large or a liquor store – small used to sell goods by retail, to hire goods, or to provide services of a personal nature, including hairdressing or beauty therapist services.”

‘Shop’ is indicated as a ‘D’ discretionary land use within the Mixed Use zone under Draft LPS2. A ‘D’ discretionary land use is defined as follows:

“means that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval.”

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal is for an ‘Unlisted Use’ which under the TPS 1 requires and Absolute Majority decision.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

“Natural and Built Environment

1.1 Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

The subject site is zoned Residential/Commercial under TPS1 which is the same for the surrounding properties to the south and east. The properties to the west are zoned Commercial.

The proposed use is considered to fall within the definition of Non‑Medical Consulting Rooms under the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms and meets the requirements of this policy relating to hours of operation and accredited qualification of employees for Non‑Medical Consulting Rooms.

The use on the subject lot has been in operation for a year and during this time, the City has not received any complaints regarding the development. The use is considered to be consistent with the zoning of the lot as Residential/Commercial under TPS1 given the small scale and intensity of the use, and the proposed use is consistent and compatible with the operating land uses on the surrounding properties which consist of small scale commercial uses. Furthermore, the land use is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Mixed Use zone under Draft LPS2 as it contributes to the variety of active uses within the area and is compatible with surrounding residential development.

A site inspection was also conducted which raised no concerns with the business.

On the basis of the above, the proposed use is considered appropriate and in this instance, it is recommended that Condition 3.4 of the previous approval (5.2016.412.1), which limits the period of approval for 12 months, be removed.

Parking

The proposed use requires the provision of four car parking bays under the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. The complex provides two car parking bays at the rear of the tenancy for the exclusive use of the occupants of Unit 7, thus resulting in a shortfall of two car parking bays as per the policy.

The two car parking bays provided are considered adequate for staff, with customers having close parking within the Brisbane Street Public Car Park, which is within 250 metres of the site and contains 228 car parking bays, and the immediately adjacent ticketed two hour parking on Brisbane Street. Additionally, the scale and intensity of the proposed use for Non-Medical Consulting Rooms is relatively low and unlikely to generate a level of demand for car parking that would exceed the capacity of the parking facilities both on-site and in the immediate locality. The shortfall of two car parking bays for the subject site was also previously approved by Council during consideration and determination of the original proposal.

On the basis of the above, it is considered that the two car bay shortfall is appropriate.

Bicycle Parking

The proposed use requires the provision of two bicycle bays under the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. During consideration and determination of the original proposal, it was considered by Council that the applicant should be responsible for providing one bicycle bay within the Brisbane Street road reserve verge in a location to the City’s satisfaction. This was reflected in Condition 4 of the original development approval (see Attachment 2).

On this basis, it is considered that the requirement for one bicycle bay to be provided within the Brisbane Street road reserve verge is acceptable and Condition 4 of the original approval should remain unchanged.

Conclusion

The proposed use was previously granted an approval with a 12 month approval period in accordance with Clause 5.4.2 of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms. The use has been operating since approval was granted with no complaints being received by the City. On this basis the use is considered compatible with the surrounding locality and it is recommended that Council approves the proposal with no limit on the approval period.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

9.2 No. 148 (Lot: 12; D/P: 405840) London Street, North Perth - Proposed Unlisted Use (Home Business - Chiropractor)

TRIM Ref: D18/3309

Author: Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward: North

Precinct: 8 – North Perth

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Location Plan and Consultation Plan

2. Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3. Attachment 3 - Determination Advice Notes

fRecommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the development application for an Unlisted Use (Home Business – Chiropractor) at No. 148 (Lot: 12 D/P: 405840) London Street, North Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes contained in Attachment 3:

1. Use of Premises

1.1. The development shall at all times comply with the ‘Home Business’ standards set out in the City’s Policy No. 7.5.9 – Home Business, Home Occupation and Home Office & Home Store;

1.2. A maximum of one chiropractor is permitted to operate from the premises at any one time;

1.3. The operator of the ‘Home Business – Chiropractor’ shall be a permanent resident of the premises whilst they are being used for this purpose;

1.4. No more than one client is permitted at the premises at any one time;

1.5. All client visits shall be by prior appointment only and appointments shall be managed to ensure there is no more than one client parking on the site at any one time and that no client parking occurs on the road verge or obstructing movement onto or along the road; and

1.6. The hours of operation for the Home Business shall be limited to the following times:

· 9:00am to 6:00pm Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday;

· 9:00am to 12:00pm Saturday; and

· CLOSED Tuesday, Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day; and

2. Signage

2.1. The sign titled ‘Walk-Ins Welcome!’ shown on the approved plans does not form part of this approval.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for an Unlisted Use (Home Business) at No. 148 London Street, North Perth (subject site).

Background:

Landowner:	Kevin and Trung Giang and Lee Luu
Applicant:	BGC Residential Pty Ltd
Date of Application:	30 May 2017
Zoning:	MRS: Urban TPS1: Zone: Residential R Code: R30/R40 TPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R40
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Single House
Proposed Use Class:	Unlisted Use (Home Business – Chiropractor)
Lot Area:	511m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Not applicable
Heritage List:	Not applicable

The subject site is located on the corner of London Street and Green Street, North Perth. The subject site and the lots to the east are zoned Residential with a density code of R30/R40. This is proposed to be changed to R40 under the City’s Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS 2). To the north of the subject site is the City of Stirling local government boundary. The subject site abuts London Street to the west with the adjacent properties being zoned Local Centre. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

On 30 May 2017, the City received a development application for an Unlisted Use (Home Business) at the subject site. The application proposes:

· A chiropractic consulting service to be conducted from bedroom 2 of the dwelling;

· One consultant who is a landowner;

· One patient at any one time;

· Three signs, with two 0.5 square metresin area and one 0.15 square metres; and

· Operating hours between 9:00am to 6:00pm Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 9:00am to 12:00pm on Saturday and Closed on Sunday and Tuesday.

The proposal aligns with the definition of a Home Occupation under TPS1, with the exception of the signage proposed, which exceeds the 0.2 square metre maximum prescribed in the definition of this land use in TPS1. As a result, the development cannot be considered to fall within this use class under TPS1 and does not fit within any other use class listed in the City’s TPS 1. The proposal is therefore considered to be an unlisted use and has been classified as a Home Business as it meets the criteria for a Home Business as set out in City’s Policy No. 7.5.9 – Home Business, Home Occupation and Home Office and Home Store.

The application proposes no physical changes to the building. The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2.

On 22 September 2017, the City under delegated authority from Council, approved a development application for a single house on the subject site. Subsequently, a building permit for the single house was issued. A recent site visit conducted by Administration has shown that the dwelling is currently under construction however, has not been completed. The applicant has confirmed that the completion of the house is anticipated to be in March 2018.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.5.9 – Home Business, Home Occupation and Home Office and Home Store and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access (Parking and Access Policy). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning elements are discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Land Use		ü
Parking & Access	ü
Signage		ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

Land Use
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Permitted Use	Unlisted Use (Home Business – Chiropractic)
Signage
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
City of Vincent Policy No. 7.5.9 – Home Business, Home Occupation and Home Office and Home Store Does not display an external sign exceeding 0.5m²	Three signs proposed with a total area of 1.5m²

The above element of the proposal does not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and is discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 21 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 27 November 2017 to 17 December 2017. The method of advertising included 11 letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers within close proximity to the subject site as shown on Attachment 1, a sign being erected on the subject site and a newspaper advert being published in the ‘Guardian Express’, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation. It is noted that letters were sent to landowner adjacent to the subject site on Green Street which are residents located in the City of Stirling however, these lots are not shown in Attachment 1. At the end of the consultation period, no submissions were received.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC: No

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· City’s Policy No. 7.5.9 – Home Business, Home Occupation and Home Office; and

· Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (Draft TPS2)

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2) is to be modified before final approval will be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to TPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the TPS2 should be given due regard as part of the determination of this application.

The modifications required do not impact on the subject property, however, some modification to the objectives of the Residential zone are required. These modifications do not significantly depart from the objectives previously supported by Council. The modified TPS2 sets out the following objectives for the Residential zone:

· To provide for a range of housing and a choice of residential densities to meet the needs of the community.

· To facilitate and encourage high quality design, built form and streetscapes throughout residential areas.

· To provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and complementary to residential development.

· To promote and encourage design that incorporates sustainability principles, including but not limited to solar passive design, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management and recycling.

· To enhance the amenity and character of the residential neighbourhood by encouraging the retention of existing housing stock and ensuring new development is compatible within these established areas.

· To manage residential development in a way that recognises the needs of innovative design and contemporary lifestyles.

· To ensure the provision of a wide range of different types of residential accommodation, including affordable, social and special needs, to meet the diverse needs of the community.

TPS2 also incorporates Home Business as land use which is an ‘A’ use in the Residential zone. An ‘A’ use is defined as:

“The use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval after giving special notice in accordance with Clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions”.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council for determination as the application proposes an Unlisted Use which requires an Absolute Majority Decision of Council under TPS1.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

“Natural and Built Environment

1.1 Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

A Home Business is an Unlisted Use under TPS1, and requires the Council to exercise its discretion. The proposal’s scale, location and impact are the key factors to consider when assessing the appropriateness of an unlisted or ‘A’ use within the Residential zone.

The application proposes to conduct a small scale home business from the residence with only one consultant, an occupant of the dwelling, operating from the premises and a maximum of one client at any one time. Parking for both occupiers and clients is provided on site. No alterations to the dwelling are proposed with the exception of the three signs proposed. It should be noted that other than the signage proposed, the development actually meets all of the standards and requirements of the lower order ‘Home Occupation’ land use, which is exempt from the need for development approval under the City’s Policy No. 7.5.9 – Home Business, Home Occupation and Home Office.

The surrounding context of the subject site comprises of a mixture of land uses including consulting rooms, residential developments, shops and a small bar. Given this context and the small scale of the proposed development, is considered that it is compatible with the Residential zoning and mixed use context of the area, provided conditions are imposed to limit this scale in line with the application.

Signage

The City’s Policy No. 7.5.9 permits signage up to 0.5 square metres in area for a home business however, the proposal incorporates three signs totalling 1.15 square metres in area. Two of the signs are located fronting London Street and one fronting onto Green Street. The proposed sign fronting Green Street is 0.5 square metres in size and is proposed to advise customers that car parking can be accessed via London Street. Advertising the location of the onsite parking is considered essential for this development and as it is the only sign on the Green Street frontage, it is considered appropriate.

One of the two signs fronting London Street advertises the business generally and is also 0.5 square metres in size. The second sign fronting London Street is 0.15 square metres in size and promotes ‘Walk-ins Welcome!’. This second sign is considered excessive for a Home Business and its promotion of ‘walk-ins’ is not considered appropriate given the Residential zoning of the site and the single car bay available for customers on site. Given this, it is recommended that this sign be excluded from any approval.

Conclusion

The proposed Home Business is considered to be an appropriate use in the locality given the proximity of the Local Centre and commercial uses. The proposal will not alter the residential dwelling currently being constructed on the subject site, meaning there will be limited impacts on the existing character of the area and streetscape. The proposal is compliant with the car parking requirements of City Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access and it is considered that the impact of the development can be appropriately managed through conditions of approval. In light of this, it is recommended that the proposal is approved subject to conditions.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

9.3 No. 366A (Lot: Y69; D/P: 1823) Charles Street, North Perth - Change of Use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms)

TRIM Ref: D17/159580

Author: Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward: North

Precinct: 7 – Charles Centre

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2. Attachment 2 - Development Application Plans

3. Attachment 3 - Determination Advice Notes

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the development application for a change of use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Rooms) at No. 366A (Lot: Y69; D/P: 1823) Charles Street, North Perth in accordance with the plans included in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 3:

1. Use of Premises

1.1. The development shall be used in accordance with the definition of ‘Non-Medical Consulting Rooms’ as set out under the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms;

1.2. A maximum of three therapists shall operate from the tenancy at any one time;

1.3. The hours of operation for the ‘Non-Medical Consulting Rooms’ shall be limited to the following times:

· 8:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Friday;

· 8:00am to 5:00pm Saturday;

· 11:00am to 5:00pm Sunday and other public holidays; and

· Closed Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day;

2. Interactive Front

2.1. The development shall maintain an active and interactive relationship and uninterrupted views between the ‘Reception’ areas of the development and Charles Street during the hours of the development’s operation to the satisfaction of the City. Darkened, obscured, mirror or tinted glass or the like is prohibited. Curtains, blinds and other internal or external treatments that obscure the view of the internal area from Charles Street are not permitted to be used during the hours of operation; and

3. Car Parking and Access

3.1. Within 28 days of the date of this approval, the applicant shall provide amended plans detailing car parking, bicycle parking and access arrangements for the development in the area marked as ‘shared car parking area’ on the approved plans to the specification, satisfaction and approval of the City. The amended plans shall include the following;

3.1.1 A minimum of three car bays and one class one or two bicycle bays provided onsite;

3.1.2 The car parking, bicycle parking and access areas designed in compliance with the requirements of AS2890.1;

3.2. Within 90 days of the date of this approval, the car park shall be completed in accordance with the amended plans approved under 3.1 above;

3.3. The car park shall be used only by staff and visitors directly associated with the development; and

3.4. Within 90 days of the date of this approval, two class three bicycle bays shall be provided at the applicants cost within the Charles Street verge immediately adjacent to the subject site in a location to the City’s satisfaction. The bicycle facilities shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 and all works shall be undertaken to the City’s specification and satisfaction; and

4. General

4.1. Where conditions have a time limitation for compliance and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Non‑Medical Consulting Rooms) at No. 366A Charles Street, North Perth (subject site).

Background:

Landowner:	Teresa Zaiti
Applicant:	Allen Carruthers
Date of Application:	3 February 2017
Zoning:	MRS: Urban TPS1: Local Centre TPS2: Commercial
Built Form Area:	Mixed Use
Existing Land Use:	Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Room)
Proposed Use Class:	Unlisted Use (Non-Medical Consulting Room)
Lot Area:	494m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Yes
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located within the Charles Street Local Centre on the east side of Charles Street, North Perth, as shown in Attachment 1. The subject site and surrounding properties to the north and south are zoned ‘Local Centre.’ The land located to the east is predominantly zoned ‘Residential’ with a density code of R30/R40. The land located to the west side on the opposite side of Charles Street is zoned ‘Commercial’.

The subject site is adjoined by a vehicle sales premise to the north and a mixed-use development to the south (shop and multiple dwellings). The subject site comprises of a single building with two tenancies. Tenancy 366 is located directly to the south and is operating as a pilates studio. The rear of the subject site is unsealed and is informally used as staff car parking for both tenancy 366 and 366A. This area can be accessed via the right of way located at the rear of the site.

The City granted conditional development approval under delegated authority for Consulting Rooms on the subject site on 22 February 2016. The previous development approval was valid for a 12 month period. Although the current application was lodged as a renewal to this approval, on assessment it was identified that the use cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the definition of ‘Consulting Rooms’ in TPS1, which is defined as:

“any building or part thereof used in the practice of a profession by a legally qualified medical practitioner or dentist, or by a physiotherapist, a masseur, a chiropractor, a chiropodist, or a person ordinarily associated with a medical practitioner in the investigation or treatment of physical or mental injuries or ailments but does not include a hospital”.

The business offers beauty therapies and massage therapies by qualified consultants, which does not align with the definition of Consulting Rooms in TPS1. The services offered also do not relate to the investigation or treatment of physical or mental injuries or ailments, and as a result are not considered to meet the definition of Consulting Rooms under TPS1.

The City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms defines ‘Non-Medical Consulting Rooms’ as:

“any building or part thereof used in the practice of a qualified beauty technician, touch therapist, natural massage therapist or the like”.

The use is considered to fall within this definition, which is an ‘Unlisted Use’ in TPS1.

As a result of the time limit imposed on the initial development approval, a further application was lodged on 3 February 2017 to enable the continued and permanent use of the subject site for beauty and massage therapy. Since the development application was lodged the use has continued to operate with no complaints. The City has undertaken a site inspection which identified no issues with the development. The development plans are included as Attachment 2. The application proposes no physical changes to the building.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning elements are discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Land Use		ü
Parking & Access		ü
Bicycle Facilities		ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Town Planning Scheme No. 1

“P” Use

Non-Medical Consulting Rooms – Unlisted Use

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access

6.84 car bays

1 class one or two bicycle bay

2 class three bicycle bays

0 car bays

0 bicycle bays

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Consultation was undertaken for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 26 October 2017 until 8 November 2017. In accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation, a notice was placed in the local newspaper and 19 letters were sent to owners and occupiers within close proximity to the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1.

No submissions were received during the advertising period.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC: No

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms; and

· Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard LPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application.

Generally the modified version of LPS2 does not impact on the subject property. Under the LPS2, the proposal would fall under the land use definition of a ‘Shop,’ which is defined as the following:

“shop means premises used to sell goods by retail, hire goods, or provide services of a personal nature (including a hairdresser, or beauty therapist) but does not include a showroom or fast food outlet”.

A Shop is a ‘P’ listed use within the Local Centre zone. Development Approval is not required for a change of use to a ‘P’ use where the use complies with applicable development standards. As the proposal does not comply with the City’s Parking Standards the application would not be exempt from development approval.

In addition LPS2 includes new objectives for the Local Centre zone as follows:

“Local Centre –

i. To provide services for the immediate neighbourhoods which do not expand into or adversely impact on adjoining residential areas.

ii. To encourage high quality, pedestrian -friendly, street-orientated development”.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal is for an “Unlisted Use” which under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 requires an Absolute Majority decision.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

“Natural and Built Environment

1.1 Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

The subject site is zoned Local Centre which is the same for the properties in the immediate vicinity, and is not contemplated to change in Draft LPS2. The use cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the definition of ‘Consulting Rooms’ in TPS1 and is therefore considered an Unlisted Use. The use meets the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms with respect to accredited qualifications of employees. The use on the subject site has been in operation for approximately two years and during this time the City has not received any complaints regarding the use of the subject site. A site visit was undertaken by the City, which raised no concerns and the development is considered legitimate.

The proposal incorporates a maximum of three consulting rooms and is considered to be of a relatively small scale. The development provides services for the immediate locality and the applicant has highlighted that the majority of customers are from the local area. The proposal is considered to be compatible and complementary with other commercial uses in the Local Centre. As such, it is not considered necessary for the proposal to continue to operate under a time limited development approval.

Car Parking

The application has been assessed against the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access based on the use being a Consulting Room, which requires three car parking bays per consulting room or consultant (whichever is lesser). Clause 2.4 of the Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access allows the City to waive the car parking and cash-in-lieu requirements for change of use applications where no physical works are proposed and where the application does not result in the reduction of existing on-site car parking.

The subject site provides no formal line-marked car parking bays. However, the rear of the site contains an informal unsealed car parking area that is shared with tenancy 366B. The proposal is required to provide 6.84 on-site car bays. The initial development approval waived the requirement for on-site car parking and cash-in-lieu as the proposal was only granted temporary approval for 12 months and was for a change of use which did not propose any physical changes to the building and did not result in the loss of any existing car parking and therefore complied with the provisions of Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access relating to waiving of cash-in-lieu. This application does not propose to alter the existing parking arrangements and does not propose any changes to the operations of the use. However, despite the previous development approval, the applicant is now proposing a permanent approval and acknowledges that there is the ability for the subject site to accommodate some onsite parking. The applicant has advised that the owner is agreeable to formalising the parking at the rear, which can accommodate a maximum of 3 parking bays for staff. As such, it is recommended that a minimum of three on-site car bays are provided for the exclusive use of the development with Council waiving the requirement for a further four bays to be provided given the site’s proximity to the Pansy Street Public Car Park and the high frequency bus route on Charles Street.

Bicycle Parking

The previous development approval required the applicant to provide one Class 1 or 2 bicycle facilities and three Class 3 bicycle facilities. The applicant has requested this condition be removed as part of this application on the basis that there is no demand for such bicycle facilities. Given the development has a shortfall of car parking, it is not considered appropriate to waive the bicycle parking requirements with adequate room available for staff bicycle parking at the rear of the site for staff and on the footpath at the front of the site for customers. As such a condition of the development approval is recommended requiring the installation of the required facilities within 90 days of this approval.

Conclusion

The proposed use has been operating for over two years with no concerns or complaints regarding the use. It is considered that the use can continue to operate without any further condition to limit its validity. The previous development approval did not require the provision of car parking. However, as the proposal seeks the permanent use of the site, it is recommended a condition relating to bicycle parking and car parking is imposed.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

9.4 No. 596-598 (Lot: 116; D/P: 2360) Newcastle Street, West Perth - Amendment to Previous Approval: Renewal of Billboard Signs Approval

TRIM Ref: D18/10172

Authors: Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Joslin Colli, Coordinator Planning Services

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward: South

Precinct: 5 – Cleaver

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Location Map

2. Attachment 2 - Development Approval 2014 and Amended Plans

3. Attachment 3 - Determination Advice Notes

4. Attachment 4 - Development Plan 2014

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application to amended the planning approval for Billboard Signage at No. 596-598 (Lot: 116; D/P: 2360) Newcastle Street, West Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 3:

1. All conditions and advice notes detailed on development approval 5.2014.439.1 granted on 21 October 2014 included in Attachment 2 continue to apply to this approval, with the exception of the Condition 1 which is amended to read as follows:

“1. This approval for the billboard signs is valid until 21 October 2029;”

2. Delete condition 2.3 from the development approval.

3. Replace the approved development plans detailed in approval 5.2014.439.1 and Attachment 4 with the development plans included in Attachment 2.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend the existing development approval for two billboards at No. 596-598 Newcastle Street, West Perth in order to remove the time limit on the approval and grant permanent approval for the two Billboards.

Background:

Landowner:	Graham Victor Cerini
Applicant:	Stewart Urban Planning
Date of Application:	6 November 2017
Zoning:	MRS: Urban TPS1: Commercial LPS2: Commercial
Built Form Area:	Activity Corridor
Existing Land Use:	Billboard
Proposed Use Class:	Billboard
Lot Area:	640m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located on the corner or Loftus Street and Newcastle Street and adjoins a vacant lot of land to the north, an office building to the east, Newcastle Street to the south and Loftus Street to the west.

The subject site currently accommodates two billboards and a landscaped area. The Billboards have a dimension of 12.6 metres by 3.36 metres. The billboards are situation on top of a 1.69 metre high colour bond stand. The landscaping of the subject site was approved by the City and has been maintained to the satisfaction of the City.

The existing billboards were first approved by Council in 2004 and have been in place since 2004. The billboards have regularly received renewals of the initial approval in 2004. A list of all of the approvals granted for the billboards is as follows:

· 9 March 2004 – Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting resolved to grant conditional development approval for the two Billboards for a period of three years.

· 8 August 2006 – Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting resolved to grant conditional development approval for the two Billboards for a period of three years.

· 23 February 2010 – Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting resolved to grant conditional development approval for the two Billboards on the subject site for a period of five years.

· 21 October 2014 – Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting resolved to grant conditional development approval for the two Billboards for a period of five years.

The current development approval is due to expire on 21 October 2019. The original development approval was granted for the subject site in recognition that the future development of the site was significantly constrained by the vehicle access issues from Loftus and Newcastle Street. The existing billboards have been located on the subject site for 14 years. The City has no record of any complaints being received in relation to the two billboards during this time.

The applicant has applied to amended to current approval to allow the permanent approval of the billboards

The current development approval is included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) and Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Signage		ü

Detailed Assessment

Consultation/Advertising:

Clause 37(2) of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 provides that the City can advertise an application in any manner that it considers to be appropriate. Given that the Billboards exist, and there are no changes proposed to what has previously been approved, the City deemed advertising for community consultation was not required in this instance.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC: No

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1; and

· Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising.

The application to amend the aforementioned condition of development approval is made in accordance with Clause 77(1)(b) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which enables an application to be made requesting a local government to amend or delete any condition to which a development approval is subject.

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The Schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to the LPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the modified version of LPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application. The modifications required do not impact on the subject site.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the original development application was determined by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

“Natural and Built Environment

1.1 Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Approval Period

The City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising does not permit billboards as of right within the City of Vincent. Departures from the requirements of Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising can be considered where it is determined the departure is appropriate to the setting of the sign.

The billboards have been located on the subject site with approval from the City for the past 14 years and have become an established part of the existing streetscape. During this time, the landowner has consistently maintained the billboards and associated landscaping to the satisfaction of the City and the City has no record of receiving any complaints relating to the billboards. The billboards are orientated to address Newcastle Street and Loftus Street and are not visible from the nearby residential properties. Similarly, the billboards do not block views of significance or obscure architectural detailing of the adjoining properties. As such, the billboards are considered to be of a scale suitable to the current land use mix and built form of the location and do not currently impact on the amenity of the nearby residential properties.

However, the subject site and surrounding area is proposed to change significantly as part of the City’s Built Form Policy, which designates the site as an Activity Corridor and sets a six storey height for the area. The development of the subject site has been limited by the vehicle access requirements to Loftus Street and Newcastle Street, which require the developer to provide significant road upgrades to enable safe access to the site. Given these constraints and the current land use and built form context of the location, the use of the site for advertising in the form of billboards, is considered to be appropriate for the medium term, until such time as the development context of this area changes in line with the Activity Corridor and six storey designation of Built Form Policy.

Despite the current vehicle access requirements, the City recognises the potential for the subject site to be developed in the future, particularly given the Commercial zoning and the six storey height permitted for the site, as well as the potential for the site to coordinate development and access arrangements with adjoining properties. As such, it is considered necessary for the billboard approval to again be time limited, consistent with the previous four approvals for the billboards. Given the complexity of development of the site, which would either require amalgamation with an adjoining lot or substantial road works to allow access, it is considered appropriate for the time limited condition on the existing approval to be amended to allow the billboards for an additional 10 years before a further application would be required.

Advertising Standards

The Australian Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) is the most appropriate authority to determine if the content of advertising signs is considered ‘offensive’ or contravenes the relevant regulations. The City would use the ASB and its standards to determine if there is a breach of condition 2.3 of the existing development approval. Given all concerning advertising would be assessed by the ASB, it is considered unnecessary and complicated for condition 2.3 to remain on the development approval. As such, it is recommended condition 2.3 be deleted as part of the development approval.

Landscaping

The City is satisfied that the landscaping provided on site, which has consistently been maintained to a high standard and meets the intent of the landscaping plan approved by Council in 2014. As part of the review of the existing landscaping plans, it was noted that the currently approved development plans also lacked clarity. In order to address this, the applicant has provided as constructed plans of the exiting billboard signs on site. These plans confirm that the as constructed billboards comply with the exiting approved plans to the extent of the detail provided in those plans. However, in order to ensure the billboards cannot be altered to take advantage of the lack of detail in the existing approved plans, it is recommended the approved plans be replaced with the as constructed drawings, which have been lodged as part of this development application.

It is acknowledged that the Billboards represent an interim solution and not the optimal development outcome for the subject site. As such, a time limited approval is considered appropriate to ensure the appropriateness of the billboards is reconsidered in the future when the site context has change. In light of the above, the Billboards are considered to be a suitable temporary use for the site for an additional 10 years.

On this basis, it is recommended that the application to amend condition one of the development approval be approved on the condition that the approval is valid for an additional 10 years.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

9.5 No. 289 (Lot 139) Walcott Street, North Perth - Proposed Amendment to Condition of Approval: Change of Use - Consulting Rooms

TRIM Ref: D18/11278

Authors: Emily Andrews, Urban Planner

Joslin Colli, Coordinator Planning Services

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward: North

Precinct: 8 – North Perth

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Plan

2. Attachment 2 - Previous Planning Approval

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application to amend planning approval 00/33/0032 for Change of Use - Consulting Rooms at No. 289 (Lot 139; D/P 3784) Walcott Street, North Perth granted on 10 April 2001, subject to the following condition:

1. All conditions, requirements and advice notes detailed on development approval 00/33/0032 granted on 10 April 2001 continue to apply to this approval, with exception of Condition iii which is amended to read as follows:

“iii The consulting rooms are only permitted to operate between the following hours:

· 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday; and

· 8:00am to 1:00pm Saturdays.”

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend a condition of the existing planning approval for a Change of Use – Consulting Rooms at No. 289 Walcott Street, North Perth to allow the development to operate from 8am to 1pm on Saturday in addition to 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday.

Background:

Landowner:	T M Ringer
Applicant:	N Shah
Date of Application:	28 November 2017
Zoning:	MRS: Residential TPS1: Zone: Residential R Code: R60 TPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R60
Built Form Area:	Transit Corridor
Existing Land Use:	Consulting Rooms – Medical
Proposed Use Class:	Consulting Rooms – Medical
Lot Area:	600.25m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Not applicable
Heritage List:	Not applicable

The subject site is bounded by Walcott Street and the City of Stirling boundary to the east, Clieveden Street to the north, with multiple dwellings to the south and a residential dwelling to the west. The subject site is zoned Residential with a density code of R60 under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1 The site has two frontages being Walcott Street to the east and Clieveden Street to the north. Directly to the north of the site on Clieveden Street is a commercial shop, while to the east on the opposite side of Walcott Street and within the City of Stirling boundary there are residential dwellings and commercial properties. The site is currently operating as a Consulting Room for medical purposes. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

At its Ordinary Council meeting on 10 April 2001, Council granted conditional development approval for the site to operate as consulting rooms - medical. A copy of this approval is provided in Attachment 2. Condition iii of the development approval set out operating hours for the consulting rooms, being 8:00am and 6:00pm, Monday to Friday.

The subject site has been operating as a consulting room offering acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine since this time and the current application seeks to extend the hours of operation to allow a new tenant to operate a dental surgery from the premises. The application does not propose to change the use of the subject site with the proposed dental surgery falling within the definition of ‘Consulting Rooms’ under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 which defines the use as:

The previous approval restricted the consulting rooms to a maximum of two consultants working at any one time and this application does not propose to alter this condition.

On 30 November 2017, the City received an application to amend condition iii of the exiting development approval to extend the operating hours of the consulting rooms to include Saturday 8:00am to 1:00pm.

Details

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning elements are discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Land Use		ü
Hours of Operation	ü
Parking and Access	ü

The land use permissibility has previously been approved by Council and is discussed in more detail in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation on the proposal occurred for a period of 14 days from 22 January 2018 to 5 February 2018. The method of consultation involved 24 letters being mailed out to all owners and occupiers adjacent to the site, as shown in Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation. It is noted that letters were sent to landowners adjacent to the subject site on Green Street who are located in the City of Stirling however, these lots are not shown in Attachment 1.

No submissions were received during the consultation period.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC: No

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

· Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms.

Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Town Planning Scheme No 2 (TPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to TPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard TPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application.

Generally the modified version of TPS2 does not impact on the subject property as the zoning and land use of the subject site will not alter. In accordance with Table 1- Zoning table of TPS2, consulting rooms within the Residential zone will become an ‘A’ use, which is a use that requires advertising before Council can exercise its discretion in determining the application. As the application was advertised for community consultation, all of the requirements for TPS2 have been met as part of the processing of this application.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes to amend an application previously determined by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

“Natural and Built Environment

1.1 Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The subject site is zoned Residential and is not contemplated to change should TPS2 be finalised. The use of consulting rooms on the site has been in operation for over 16 years and during this time the City has no record of receiving any complaints regarding the development.

The subject site was approved to operate as a consulting room by Council at its Ordinary Council meeting on 10 April 2001, with the site currently occupied by Metro Health and Medicine which specialises in acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine. The owner now proposes to operate the ‘Consulting Rooms’ as a dental surgery, with no more than two consultants in accordance with the existing approval.

The application seeks to amend the previous approval issued by Council by extending the permitted operating hours, which currently restricts the operating hours to 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday, to allow the development to also operate on Saturday between 8:00am and 1:00pm.

The City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting rooms, permits consulting rooms to operate between the hours of 8am and 6pm on Saturdays, and the proposed operating hours of between 8:00am to 1:00pm on a Saturday is consistent with the policy. The proposed operating hours are considered to be appropriate for the context of the subject site given the shop directly opposite on Clieveden Street, the low intensity of the Consulting Rooms, with a maximum of two consultants, and the six car bays provided in compliance with the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. As a result it is not considered that the additional hours will have a detrimental impact on the amenity surrounding residential properties.

It is therefore recommended that the condition as shown on the determination issued by Council on 10 April 2001 be amended to include the operation of the consulting rooms between the hours of 8:00am – 1:00pm on Saturday.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

9.6 No. 7 (Lot: 31; D/P: 2861) Chelmsford Road, Mount Lawley - Change of Use from Two Grouped Dwellings to Single House and Eating House with Alterations and Additions

TRIM Ref: D18/16043

Author: Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward: South

Precinct: 10 – Norfolk

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2. Attachment 2 - Applicant's Response to Community Submissions

3. Attachment 3 - Traffic Impact Statement

4. Attachment 4 - Noise Management Plan

5. Attachment 5 - Development Plans

6. Attachment 6 - Letter of Justification

7. Attachment 7 - Further Response to Submissions Provided by Applicant

8. Attachment 8 - Summary of Submissions

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 REFUSES the application for development approval for the change of use from Grouped Dwelling to Single House and Eating House (including alterations and additions) at No. 7 (Lot: 31; D/P 2861) Chelmsford Road, Mount Lawley in accordance with the plans date stamped 1 December 2017, as shown in Attachment 6, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed use does not satisfy the objectives of the City of Vincent’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1, specifically Clause 6(3), or the objectives set out in the City of Vincent’s draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 for the Residential zone, as it is considered to have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the immediate locality due to the encroachment of incompatible non-residential development into the Residential zone and an area with a residential nature and character;

2. The proposed car parking shortfall does not satisfy the objectives of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access as insufficient parking has been provided on-site to accommodate the proposed development and will lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality;

3. The proposed street setbacks do not meet the design principles of P5.2.1 of Clause 5.2 of Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form as the proposal does not preserve and enhance the visual character of the existing residential streetscape;

4. The proposed landscaping does not meet the design principles of P5.14.1 to P5.14.5 of Clause 5.14 of Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form as the proposal does not demonstrate that the development will provide landscaping on site which will provide a positive contribution to the development and the residential character of the area and does not facilitate the retention of existing vegetation; and

5. Having due consideration to subclauses 67(m) and (n) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the development is not considered to be compatible with its setting due to the likely effect of the scale and appearance of the development on the residential character of the locality.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Two Grouped Dwellings to Single House and Eating House (including alterations and additions) at No. 7 Chelmsford Road, Mount Lawley.

Background:

Landowner:	R Macri
Applicant:	KTR Creations Pty Ltd
Date of Application:	21 April 2017
Zoning:	MRS: Urban TPS1: Zone: Residential R Code: R40 TPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R40
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Grouped Dwelling
Proposed Use Class:	Single House – “P” Use Eating House – “SA” Use
Lot Area:	469.752m²
Right of Way (ROW):	5.02m, City owned, sealed, easement with rights of access for subject site
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located on Chelmsford Road, Mount Lawley and is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density of ‘R40’. The land immediately abutting the subject site to east and south is zoned ‘Commercial’ and ‘District Centre’. To the west of the subject site is a ROW which is 5.02 metres wide, City owned and includes an easement with rights of access provided to the subject site. The area immediately to the west, abutting the ROW, and the properties directly opposite to the north are zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of ‘R40’ and is predominantly characterised by single dwellings. The start of this ‘Residential’ zone clearly delineated on Chelmsford Road, directly in front of the subject site, in the form of a one way slow point which restricts traffic from Beaufort Street travelling into and parking in this residential area. The location of the subject site is shown in Attachment 1.

The site accommodates two existing grouped dwellings, a single storey grouped dwelling which is orientated to Chelmsford Road and a three storey grouped dwelling to the rear of the property which fronts the ROW. Both grouped dwellings are provided with access from the ROW and are on a single certificate of title.

On 9 December 1996, Council at its Ordinary Meeting resolved to refuse an application for the rezoning of the subject property to Commercial C2. The Council also recommended that the applicant contact administration regarding use of the property for activities such as Consulting Rooms which may be considered within a Residential zone. An application for a change of use was subsequently received and presented to Council on 25 August 1997. At that meeting Council resolved to refuse the application for the following reason:

“The non-compliance with the requirement concerning the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of amenities, particularly in the respect of the affected upon the surrounding residential use properties specifically by the generation of traffic demand for car parking and clientele.”

On 23 October 1997, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Minister for Planning against Council’s decision. On 30 January 1998, the Acting Minister for Planning dismissed the appeal and upheld Council’s decision.

On 26 July 2011, Council approved a change of use from Single House to Medical Consulting Rooms (Psychology) and Associated Alteration and Additions subject to a number of conditions. However, it appears that this approval was not acted upon and has therefore lapsed. In the meantime, the subject site has continued to be used as a grouped dwelling, as previously approved. This was confirmed through the application form which was submitted as part of the development application.

On 2 April 2017, the City received a development application for a change of use from Grouped Dwelling to an Eating House with alterations and additions. This proposal incorporated:

· A maximum of 49 patrons at any one time;

· Opening hours of 10:00am to 10:00pm, seven days a week;

· Three staff members;

· No car parking bays or bicycle bays;

· A total area of 197.07 square metres (including alfresco dining and amenities area); and

· 2.27 metres setback to the building line and nil to the alfresco.

This application was advertised for a period of 23 August 2017 and concluding on 12 September 2017. At the end of this advertising period a total of eight submissions were received, all being objections.

Following the consultation period, the applicant provided the following additional information to address the concerns raised:

· a justification and response to the summary of objections, included as Attachment 2;

· a Traffic Impact Statement, included as Attachment 3; and

· a Noise Management Plan included as Attachment 4.

Subsequently, the applicant revised the application and submitted amended plans in an effort to address the concerns of the residents. The amended proposal incorporate:

· A maximum of 28 patrons at any one time;

· Opening hours of 10:00am to 10:00pm, seven days a week;

· Three staff members;

· Two on site car parking bays;

· A total area of 164.90 square metres; and

· A 4.13 metre setback to the building line and 2 metre setback to the alfresco.

The application and its assessment only relates to the change of use from grouped dwelling to eating house at the front portion of the subject lot, which would then result in the grouped dwelling to the rear changing land use to single house. This dwelling will remain and will be the only building used for residential purposes. This will not result in any additional requirements for the single house.

A roof sign for the proposed eating house has been included in the application. The sign complies with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising and in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 is exempt from the need to obtain development approval as it satisfies the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.1 – Minor Nature Development.

The plans accompanying the application is included as Attachment 5. A letter of further justification and a letter addressing the submissions received as part of the second consultation period, are included as Attachment 6 and Attachment 7, respectively.

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policies No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Land Use		ü
Street Setback		ü
Landscaping		ü
Parking & Access		ü
Bicycle Facilities		ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

Land Use
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Town Planning Scheme No. 1 “P” Use	Eating House – “SA” Use
Street Setback
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form – Clause 5.2 A minimum street setback of 5.4m	4.1m setback to the building and a 2.0m setback to the alfresco
Landscaping
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form – Clause 5.14 15% deep soil zones 30% of the site area as canopy cover.	14.4% deep soil zones Canopy cover percentage has not been provided
Parking & Access
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access 3.58 car parking bays required after applying adjustment factors	2 car parking bays provided
Bicycle Facilities
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access 5 bicycle spaces	Nil on-site bicycle facilities resulting in a shortfall of 5 spaces.

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Consultation was undertaken for a period of 21 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 10 January 2018 until 31 January 2018. The method of consultation included a sign on site, a notice in the local newspaper ‘The Community News, and letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

A total of 12 submissions were received consisting of nine objections and three letter of supports. The main issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

· Concern relating the lack of on-site parking;

· Concerns relating to noise from the proposed eating house;

· Concerns that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the locality;

· Concerns that the development will be inconsistent with the existing streetscape;

· Concern that the eating house may impact on congestion in the local area;

· Concerns that commercial uses are beginning to encroach into the residential zone impacting on residential amenity; and

· Concerns that the illuminated signage will cause a visual disturbance to the area.

The main issues raised in the submissions are discussed in the Comment section below. A summary of the submissions received in both sets of community consultation and Administration’s comment on each of these is included as Attachment 8.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC: No

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

· State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy);

· Policy No. 7.5.1 - Minor Nature Development; and

· Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant has the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

Town Planning Scheme No. 1

The general objectives of the Scheme as outlined in Clause 6 are applicable, specifically Subclause 3 which is outlined as follows:

“(3) The general objectives of this Scheme are –

(a) to cater for the diversity of demands, interests and lifestyles by facilitating and encouraging the provision of a wide range of choices in housing, business, employment, education, leisure, transport and access opportunities;

(b) to protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the Town’s inhabitants and the social, physical and cultural environment;

(c) to ensure that the use and development of land is managed in an effective and efficient manner within a flexible framework which – (i) recognises the individual character and needs of localities within the Scheme zone area; and (ii) can respond readily to change;….

(f) to co-ordinate and ensure that development is carried out in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner which –

(i) makes optimum use of the Town’s growing infrastructure and resources;

(ii) promotes an energy efficient environment; and

(iii) respects the natural environment;

Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (Draft TPS2)

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s Draft Town Planning Scheme No 2 (TPS2) is to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The Schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to TPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard TPS2 should be given due regard as part of the determination of this application. Proposed TPS2 and the modifications required do not impact on the subject property.

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access Policy

Council may, at its discretion, waive the car parking requirements for change of use applications to provide additional on-site car parking, including waiving cash-in-lieu requirements in the following instances where:

(a) the application does not involve the reduction of existing on-site car parking bays as part of the application;

(b) the application does not involve any building works that contribute to additional floor area that would be subject to parking requirements; and

(c) a current planning approval required payment of cash-in-lieu but that approval has not been acted upon in any way including payment of cash-in-lieu in part or in full.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the City received more than five objections during community consultation.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

“Natural and Built Environment

1.1 Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

The property is zoned Residential with a density coding of R40. The zoning is not anticipated to change should the Draft LPS2 be finalised. The application proposes to use the building fronting Chelmsford Road as an ‘Eating House’. An Eating House is an ‘SA’ use in the Residential zone under TPS1 meaning it is not permitted unless Council has exercised its discretion. In exercising discretion consideration is to be given as to whether the land use is appropriate in the context of the locality. The land use permissibility for a Restaurant in the Residential zone under Draft LPS2 is an ‘A’ use which has the same meaning as an ‘SA’ use.

During the two community consultation periods regarding the initial and then revised proposal, the City received numerous objections, which included concerns that the proposed use is not appropriate in the area, would disrupt the residential amenity of the locality and would promote the encroachment of the non‑residential uses into the residential zone. The applicant has outlined in their justification that the subject property is separated from the remainder of the residential area by a ROW and directly abuts the District Centre and Commercial zone. Notwithstanding the location of the ROW and ‘Commercial’ to the east, it is considered that the subject site is clearly part of the residential portion of Chelmsford Road. The properties directly opposite the subject site are zoned ‘Residential’ and are residential in nature. A very clear delineation of the residential area from the commercial area along Chelmsford Road is set directly in front of the subject site, in the form of a one way slow point which restricts traffic from Beaufort Street travelling into and parking in this residential area. This proposal constitutes a non-residential development within a Residential zone.

The zoning of the subject site is also not proposed to change in LPS2. The applicant has argued that the presence of the ROW will separate the subject site from the remainder of the Residential zoned land and that the Commercial zone should, in essence, be from the subject site itself. This was considered and explored as part of the preparation of Draft TPS2 and it was determined that the Residential zone should commence at the subject site given the location of Residential properties directly opposite the subject site and the one way slow point directly in front of the subject site. Given this, it is considered that the subject site sits firmly within the residential context of Chelmsford Road and that any development on the site must be compatible with the residential character of this area.

The reuse of an existing house assists with the character of the site to remain compatible with the adjacent residential development, however the additions, alterations and signage proposed will change its appearance substantially, particularly given the reduced setbacks of the additions. The proposed additions will increase the floor area of the building which, in addition to the commercial nature of the proposal, results in a significantly more intense scale of the development. The proposed reduced street setback, to accommodate the outdoor alfresco dining area, has been identified as a key contributor towards a loss in residential amenity as it is considered that this will exacerbate issues relating to noise and will not fit in with the existing built form of the residential area.

The proposal to accommodate 28 patrons is significant and will draw from a wider area in addition to the local catchment. The proposed use will increase the scale and intensity of non-residential uses in the residential zone and Chelmsford Road and it is considered that the proposed use and scale is will result in a detrimental impact to the amenity of the residential portion of Chelmsford Road. In this instance, it is considered that the proposed use is incompatible with the residential nature and character of the area and is also inconsistent with to the objectives of TPS1 and the objectives of the Residential zone under Draft LPS2.

Noise

The proposed hours of operation for the eating house are 10:00am to 10:00pm, seven days a week. During community consultation concerns were raised regarding the noise generated by patrons to the restaurant while dining and particularly in the evenings and by staff clearing towards the end of the night. The design of the additions to the building promote open indoor/outdoor functional areas facilitated by large windows ~~bi-fold doors~~ opening out towards the street for a majority of the building façade.

An acoustic report has not been prepared for the proposed use and given the open nature of the alfresco area, it is unclear as to the extent of impact these measures will have on noise from the proposed use. The applicant has submitted documentation indicating the measures they proposed to undertaken in order to alleviate noise generated by patrons and staff and the general operations of the eating house. The measures proposed include:

· Patio blinds around the outdoor dining area;

· Planter boxes with live trees/ bushes surrounding outdoor dining area to shield neighbours;

· Absorptive acoustic ceilings or acoustic baffles, (to create a more comfortable area for guests, this will also help to ensure guests keep voices low instead of having to talk over background noise);

· Music curfew or directional speakers in patio area; and

· Plastic or upholstered chairs instead of metal aluminium chairs (to prevent the clanking when setting up and packing up/cleaning).

The applicants have outlined that these measures have been based on other cafes with alfresco dining areas. The applicants in their response to the submissions received have also indicated that the eating house will be family friendly and that no smoking will be permitted in the area adjacent to the ROW therefore deterring patrons from loitering in this area and will be enforced through the use of signage. The applicant has also indicated that all doors and windows will be closed while the restaurant is being cleaned at the end of the night.

The information submitted as a means of alleviating or mitigating any noise concerns raised by the community is not considered to adequately address potential noise from the proposed use. Despite these proposed noise attenuation measures, the use of the subject site as a café until 10:00pm, particularly in the alfresco area, is considered to have an undue impact on the adjacent residential properties.

Parking and Traffic

The proposal seeks approval for an eating house with capacity for up to 28 patrons. The deemed-to-comply standards of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Parking and Access requires the provision of 3.58 (after the application of adjustment factors) on-site car parking bays. The proposed development incorporates two car parking bays which results in a two car parking bay shortfall.

Concerns that the lack of on-site car bays will exacerbate the already existing car parking issues in the street, was raised during the community consultation period. The submitters have outlined that the area is already congested due to the general lack of car parking in the area. Illegal parking and the illegal access of vehicles into Chelmsford Road which cannot be directly accessed from Beaufort Street, is also a highlighted issue in the area.

The applicant, in response to the submissions, has submitted a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), which incorporates a parking occupancy survey to demonstrate that the operation of an additional eating house to the area would not adversely affect the availability of on-street parking, off-street parking in the nearby public car parks or traffic in general. The parking occupancy survey was based on 120 on street car bays on Chelmsford Road between Beaufort and William Streets and 56 car bays accommodated within the Chelmsford Road Council owned public car park. The number of car bays along Chelmsford Road is an approximation only as there are no line markings on this street. The parking survey was conducted at intervals between 10:00am to 10:00pm for seven days. The results indicate that there is an average parking occupancy on weekdays of 62 percent, on weekends of 86 percent with a total average of 74 percent.

It has been noted that the peak occupancy occurs on Friday at 6:00pm (84 percent occupancy), 6:00pm on Saturdays (97 percent occupancy) and between midday to 2:00pm on Sundays (Average of 91 percent occupancy) which strongly correlate to the likely peak demand times of this proposal, being dinner time on the week nights, dinner time on Saturday and lunch time on Sunday. It is considered that the survey results illustrate an existing high occupancy particularly during the peak eating house times and it is considered likely that the proposed change of use will have a detrimental impact on the current car parking and congestion issues in the area.

There are existing two hour parking restrictions along this section of Chelmsford Road, which have been implemented in response to increased parking demands in the locality. The City has already received a number of car parking complaints in regard to vehicles in Chelmsford Road exceeding parking time limits, obstructing driveways, footpaths and ROWs and parking in no standing zones on Chelmsford Road. It is considered that the proposed development will contribute to the parking issues that already exist in this area.

The parking shortfall triggers the need to consider a cash-in-lieu contribution for the shortfall of 1.58 bays. The applicant as part of the TIS indicated a willingness to pay the cash-in-lieu for the shortfall and has outlined that the monies could contribute towards the construction of additional car parking bays in the area and demarcation of street bays on either side of Chelmsford Road which is currently unmarked. The rationale behind this suggestion is that the marking of bays will facilitate the orderly parking of cars on the street. Council may, at its discretion, waive the car parking requirements for change of use applications to provide additional on-site car parking. The proposal does not satisfy the criteria provided in the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 and the waiving of cash-in-lieu is not supported.

Given the above, it is considered that the parking shortfall will have an adverse impact on the amenity of Chelmsford Road as is not consistent with the zoning of the site due to its reliance on Chelmsford Road and the public car park for parking of its customers and staff, which is already nearing capacity.

Street Setback

The proposed alterations and additions to the front of the existing building accommodate an extension to the existing structure which has a setback 4.13 metres and a covered alfresco area which has a 2.0 metre setback to the front boundary.

The reduced street setback does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Built Form Policy and is required to be assessed using the design principles. In order to satisfy the design principles, the proposed building would be required to contribute to and be consistent with the ‘established streetscape’. In this instance it is considered that the ‘established streetscape’ relates to the ‘Residential’ zone to which the subject lot is a part of and not on the existing development on the adjoining ‘Commercial’ zoned lot. The building setback is considered to be inconsistent with this ‘existing streetscape’, including the residential properties directly opposite and to the west on Chelmsford Road for the following reasons:

· The front setback in the ‘Residential’ zoned properties is significantly more than that proposed, being an average of 5.4 metres in lieu of the 2.0 metres proposed to the alfresco area;

· the appearance of the existing house will be diminished with the proposed additions and alfresco area which will no longer match the existing housing stock on the street; and

· the proposal does not adequately provide for parking and landscaping on site.

Given the above it is considered that the proposal does not meet the design principles of P5.2.1 of Clause 5.2 City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and as a result the proposed reduction to the street setback is not supported.

Landscaping

The application has been assessed against the provisions of the Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, which sets a deemed-to-comply standard of 15 percent of the site area as deep soil zone and 30 percent of the site area as canopy coverage at maturity. A total of 14.4 percent of the site area has been provided as deep soil zone.

The applicant has not provided a detailed landscaping plan and as a result the proposed canopy cover cannot be accurately determined. The landscaping provided consists of areas along the western boundary and a small area adjacent to the building entry. The existing vegetation in the front setback area, including an established “Callistemon” tree is to be removed to accommodate the proposed addition.

Although the proposal provides for deep soil zones aligned with the intent of the City’s Policy, the removal of the existing vegetation in the front setback area combined with the absence of a detailed landscaping plan addressing canopy coverage, it does not demonstrate that the proposal will provide a positive contribution to the existing streetscape and minimise the impact of the development on the surrounding residential area.

Given the above it is considered that the proposal does not meet the design principles of P5.14.1 to P5.14.5 of Clause 5.14 City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and as a result the proposed landscaping is considered insufficient.

Bicycle Parking

The City’s Parking and Access Policy bases the requirements for bicycle facilities on the public floor area of the eating house. In this instance a total of 5 spaces for bikes are required. No bike bays have been illustrated on the submitted plans for the proposed eating house and the lack of bicycle parking is not considered acceptable. There is sufficient opportunity to incorporate the required spaces and should Council consider approving the application it is recommended that a condition be applied requiring bicycle parking.

Conclusion

The proposed eating house is not considered to be compatible with the Residential zone or the residential area of Chelmsford Street, which it is a part of. The proposal seeks to depart from several deemed-to-comply standards of the Built Form Policy in terms of street setback, landscaping, parking and bicycle facilities. Furthermore, the application has not demonstrated it satisfies the applicable design principles and more broadly the relevant objectives of the City’s current and proposed local planning scheme.

The lack of on-site car parking and bicycle parking will result in the eating house placing undue pressure on the existing on street parking and congestion issues in the area, the physical form of the eating house will detract from the existing residential area and the noise generated by the intended use will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residential area. It is considered that the proposal will have an adverse effect on the amenity of the locality and it is recommended that the application be refused.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

9.7 Outcomes of Advertising - Policy No. 7.7.1 - Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

TRIM Ref: D17/152333

Authors: Stephen Schreck, Strategic Planning Officer

Stephanie Smith, Manager Policy and Place

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Current Policy No. 7.7.1 - Parking and Access

2. Attachment 2 - Advertised Draft Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 - Non-Residential Development Parking

3. Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions

4. Attachment 4 - Revised Draft Policy No. 7.7.1 - Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Tracked Changes)

5. Attachment 5 - Revised Draft Policy No. 7.7.1 - Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Final)

6. Attachment 6 - Amended Page 6.13 Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017/2018 (Tracked Changes)

7. Attachment 7 - Amended Page 6.13 Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017/2018 (Final)

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. PROCEEDS with and ADOPTS draft Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 included as Attachment 5 pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

2. AMENDS BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017/2018, as shown in Attachment 7, in accordance with Section 6.16(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995; and

3. ENDORSES Administration’s responses to submissions in relation to the advertising of draft Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 included in Attachment 3; and

4. NOTES that Administration will publish a notice of adoption of Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the outcomes of community consultation on draft Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non‑Residential Development Parking Requirements and to finally consider the revised draft Policy.

Background:

The City has an existing Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access which provides guidance on the assessment of parking for development applications in the City of Vincent. A copy of this Policy is included as Attachment 1.

The City conducted a review of this Policy in 2016 to ensure that the Policy was meeting contemporary parking needs. Council endorsed a new draft Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements for the purpose of advertising for public comment at its meeting on 18 October 2016 (Item 9.1.12). A copy of the advertised draft Policy is included as Attachment 2.

The draft Policy was advertised between 12 November 2016 and 27 January 2017 in accordance with Council’s resolution. During the advertising period a number of submissions were received detailing a range of issues. As a result of these submissions the City has extensively reviewed the advertised draft Policy and made a number of detailed modifications to the overall policy structure, application and land uses listed in Table 1. These changes were tested comprehensively with previous and current development applications to ensure that the revised draft Policy will achieve the intended outcomes of the draft Policy. This process is now complete and the revised draft Policy is now being presented to Council to consider its final adoption.

Details:

The City received eight submissions during the consultation period which raised three key issues. A full summary of submissions and responses is included as Attachment 3. The three key issues are summarised below:

1. Policy Structure/Application

The advertised draft Policy proposed to assess all applications for non-residential development against the parking standards in Table 1 unless the proposed development was a small scale alteration or addition, or a change of use that also met the criteria in Clause 1.2. The advertised draft Policy also proposed to remove the adjustment factors that are currently in the existing Policy and incorporate the relevant adjustment factors into the Car Parking Minimum standards in Table 1 for specific Built Form Areas.

The City received one submission regarding the removal of the adjustment factors during consultation. The submitter explained that the current adjustment factors are preferred as they take into account the availability of public transport and public parking spaces when the City determines the amount of parking that a development is required to provide. Concern was raised that without accounting for these adjustment factors applicants would be forced into providing excessive car parking.

The City agrees that it is important to consider the surrounding factors such as the availability of public transport and public parking spaces. The advertised parking standards were proposed to simplify the process of determining the parking required for a development by embedding the adjustment factors into the Car Parking Minimum standards in Table 1 for each Built Form Area. As part of the advertised policy, it was proposed that where a development did not meet the standards set out in Table 1 and did not meet the change of use exemption requirements, that applicants could justify the level of parking provided through a Parking Management Plan. In addition the advertised Policy retained Car Parking Maximum standard in Table 1 to ensure that excessive parking was not permitted.

As a result of this submission the City reviewed the overall application of the draft Policy to development applications. It was identified that there was little guidance in the policy for applications that proposed less parking than the standards in Table 1 and that the change of use exemption would result in applications which generate additional parking demand not requiring a parking assessment. As a result, the additional parking demand generated may have a negative impact on the amenity of the surrounding area for both local businesses and residents. It was also identified that there may be circumstances where an application proposes an ancillary use that does not generate additional parking demand and it was unclear how these types of applications would be dealt with in a streamlined and flexible way.

To address the above issues it is recommended that the advertised Clause 1.1 and 1.2 be modified and two new definitions be added for ‘Ancillary Use’ and ‘Predominant Use’. The new Clauses require all non-residential development to be assessed against Table 1. Where the requirements of Table 1 are not met then the application will be assessed against a series of principles, included as Clause 1.2. In these circumstances the applicant will be required to explain the parking demand that is generated by the proposal and justifying how this parking demand will be addressed either through alternative transport infrastructure, reciprocal parking, cash-in-lieu or any alternative arrangement that will not adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area. The decision maker will also consider if the proposal is for an ancillary use that is subsidiary to the existing approved use, in which case no additional parking will be required, provided the ancillary use does not:

· Contribute to additional floor area;

· Remove existing on site car parking;

· Extend outside of the hours of operation for the predominant use;

· Propose a floor area greater than that of the predominant land use.

This modification will ensure that the City’s policy framework is flexible enough to reflect the evolving nature of town centre land uses and will streamline the development assessment process in these instances.

2. Table 1

The advertised draft Policy proposed to modify the number of land uses and the parking requirements in Table 1 compared with the current Policy. It grouped together land uses that were deemed to generate consistent demand for parking and provided a consistent parking standard for these grouped land uses. Where a land use was not specifically mentioned in Table 1 it was proposed that the applicant would be required to provide a PMP, in accordance with the framework set out in the revised draft Policy.

One submitter expressed concern with the number of land uses in Table 1 that would be required to provide a PMP and the grouping of ‘Hotel’ and ‘Motel’ uses. The submitter was concerned that the requirement for applicants to provide a PMP was onerous and would be a significant cost to developers. The submitter also expressed that Motels often generated a high demand for parking, whereas Hotel users are more likely to use alternative transport methods and as a result it is inappropriate to group these two land uses.

The City agrees that the reduced number of land uses in Table 1 may requirement applicants to prepare a PMP in many circumstances which may be overly onerous. The addition of more land uses in Table 1 would reduce the instances where a PMP is required and simplify the application process. As a result of this submission, the City has reviewed the land uses listed in Table 1 and reintroduce these land uses proposed to be removed by the draft Policy. The reintroduction of these land uses allows the City to have a baseline parking standard for the majority of land uses and reduces the number of land uses that would need to submit a PMP. The City has also reconciled the land uses in Table 1 with those in Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). Where a land use listed in LPS2 is not listed in Table 1 of the revised draft Policy a PMP will be required that details the parking demand for the use, the amount of parking to be provided and justification for why this is the case. This is consistent with the City’s current process for unlisted land uses.

In relation to the submission on ‘Hotels’ and ‘Motels’ it is agreed that they may generate different parking requirements and it is recommended that they be separated in the revised draft Policy. It is recommended that Motels be removed from Table 1 as the parking generated from this use depends on its scale, intensity and location. Instead an applicant would be required to provide a PMP and the City could then assess the proposal on its merits and determine the impact on the surrounding area. Hotels are proposed to remain in Table 1 as the parking requirement prescribed is considered appropriate.

3. Cash-In-Lieu

The advertised draft Policy proposed to retain a cash in lieu provision which states that for developments over three million dollars the City would charge double the prescribed cash-in-lieu for parking fee as listed in the City’s Fees and Charges.

Two submissions were received explaining that charging double cash-in-lieu for developments over three million dollars was unjustified and was objected to.

The payment of cash-in-lieu is intended to reflect the cost of the City providing additional transport infrastructure to service the shortfall in parking demand generated from the use. This cost is not considered to have any relation to the value of a development which generates this parking demand. The appropriated place to include the required fee is in the City’s Fees and Charges, adopted as part of the annual budget.

Given this, it is recommended that this requirement be removed from the advertised draft Policy. It is also recommended that the City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges be amended to remove the requirement for double the amount of cash-in-lieu to be paid for large scale development and ensure that the cash-in-lieu rate is consistent for all development, regardless of its value.

The City added Clause 6.1 to the revised draft Policy to provide greater clarity surrounding the number of bays that an applicant will be required to pay cash in lieu. Cash in lieu will be charged for the number of bays required after subtracting the total number of bays on site, the number of bays cash in lieu has been previously paid for and/or the number of bays the City has previously waived through an approval. These provisions ensure that previous parking calculations are captured and the current development is not over charged cash in lieu or provide an excess of parking on site.

It is noted that the City is currently reviewing the operation and application of cash-in-lieu of parking as part of a separate project under Item 4.10 of the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2017/18 – 2020/21.

In addition to the changes proposed as a result of the submissions, a number of minor changes are proposed to update the Purpose and Application section of the Policy; introduce a new Policy Structure section; and update the Policy Objectives. A number of minor editorial modifications are also proposed throughout the revised draft Policy. A copy of the revised draft Policy with track changes is included as Attachment 4 and a clean version is included as Attachment 5. A copy of the amended page 6.13 of the City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017/2018 with track changes is included as Attachment 6, and a clean version is included as Attachment 7.

Consultation/Advertising:

The draft Policy was advertised between 12 November 2016 and 27 January 2017. During the advertising period a notice was published on the City’s website and in local newspapers, and a letter was sent to State Government Agencies and industry representatives inviting comments. The City received eight submissions, which are discussed in the Details section above.

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

· City of Vincent Local Planning Strategy;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and

· Local Planning Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.

Risk Management Implications:

Nil.

Strategic Implications:

2016/17 Corporate Business Plan Item 4.2.

The City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023, Objective 1.1.1 states:

“1.1.1 Develop and implement a Town Planning Scheme and associated policies, guidelines and initiatives that deliver the community vision”.

The Council Priorities for 2017/18 include:

“Thriving & Creative Town Centres

Our town centres are vibrant and thriving, each with their own unique character and identity. We want to make sure it stays that way by promoting high quality development outcomes and supporting our town centres and the creativity and culture they offer.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011 – 2016 states:

“1.13 Employ a demand management approach to car parking within the City to encourage the use of alternative transport modes”.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The costs associated with publishing the adoption of the Policy will be met by the City’s existing operational budget.

Comments:

The revised draft Policy, with the proposed modifications, will provide clarity to applicants on the parking standards for the City, while also allowing sufficient flexibility to assess applications on their merits in line with relevant planning principles. The Policy has been revised to align with the structure and application of Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, to create a consistent and legible planning framework.

It is recommended that Council adopt the revised draft Policy and the amended Page 6.13 of the City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017/2018.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

10 Engineering

10.1 LATE REPORT: Charles Veryard Reserve – Community Survey Results Regarding Dog Exercise Area

LATE REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL MEETING 6 MARCH 2018.

10.2 Tender No. 543/17 - Supply and Delivery of One Side Loading Automatic Bin Lifter Refuse Truck

TRIM Ref: D18/19970

Author: Craig Wilson, Manager Asset & Design

Authoriser: Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments: 1. Tender Evaluation Summary - Confidential

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. ACCEPTS Tender No. 543/17 from Truck Centre WA Pty Ltd for the supply and delivery of one 22/23m^ᵌside loading automatic bin lifter refuse truck with a Volvo chassis and a Bucher Municipal compactor unit, for the contract price of $371,400 in accordance with the tender submissions and conditions of tender; and

2. NOTES the sale of the City’s existing side loading automatic bin lifter refuse truck will be undertaken in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Purpose of Report:

To consider awarding Tender No. 543/17 for the supply and delivery of one 22/23m^ᵌ side loading automatic bin lifter refuse truck for use by the City’s Waste Management Services.

Background:

The City’s side arm rubbish truck compactors have a useful life of five to seven years. The current rubbish truck listed for disposal is a 2010 model Iveco Acco, and is to be replaced as part of the long-term major plant replacement program in 2017/18. It has been used continuously for waste collection operations for the past seven years.

Rubbish collection vehicles work extremely hard over their operational life, five days per week 52 weeks per year, and if not replaced within the recommended time frames, may potentially result in expensive repairs to both vehicle and/or compactor unit.

The side arm compactor fleet is predominantly used to collect domestic waste throughout the City. The majority of waste collected (by the side arm fleet) is disposed of at the Mindarie Regional Council Neerabup Resource Recovery Facility (RRF).

Details:

Applications for Tender No. 543/17 Received:

At the close of the tender advertising period two tenders were received from the following companies:

· Daimler Trucks Perth; and

· Truck Centre WA Pty Ltd

Tender Assessment:

Under Delegation 1.19 the Procurement Plan was executed by the then Acting Director Technical Services with the Evaluation Criteria being approved on 7 December 2017 as below.

CRITERIA	WEIGHTING
Product features	40%
Price (tender)	35%
Life cycle costs and warranty	20%
Operators ergonomics	5%
Total	100%

The members of the Tender Evaluation Panel (below) individually assessed each submission against the aforementioned evaluation criteria, with a scoring system being used as part of the assessment process. Unless otherwise stated, a response to each of these criteria, that provided all the information requested, was assessed as satisfactory and in the first instance, was awarded an average score of five points from a possible 10 points. The extent to which the response demonstrated greater or lesser relevant satisfaction of each of these criteria resulted in a score greater (6-10) or less (4-0) than average. The aggregate score of each response was used in assessing the submissions.

Tender Evaluation Panel:

Engineering: Supervisor Waste Management/Street Cleaning

Depot Operations Supervisor

Manager Asset and Design

Tender Evaluation Ranking:

Tender rankings are shown in the following table. Full details and submitted prices are shown in Confidential Attachment 1.

Selection Criteria	Weighting	Truck Centre WA Pty Ltd	Daimler Trucks Perth
Product features	40%	38.50	34.10
Price (tender)	35%	35.00	33.70
Life cycle costs and warranty	20%	20.00	19.70
Operators ergonomics	5%	5.00	5.00
Total	100%	98.50	94.10
Ranking		1^st	2^nd

Consultation/Advertising:

Tender No. 543/17 for the supply and delivery of one 22/23m^ᵌ side loading automatic bin lifter refuse truck was advertised on 13 December 2017 and closed on 17 January 2018.

Contract Type	Lump sum contract
Contract Term:	The preferred tenderer, Truck Centre WA Pty Ltd, currently has the vehicle and compactor unit offered in stock and if approved by Council could be delivered within a month upon receipt of an order.
Commencement Date:	Expected delivery time is April 2018
Expiry Date:	Not applicable

Legal/Policy:

The tender was advertised and assessed in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, and the City’s Purchasing Policy No. 1.2.3.

Risk Management Implications:

Not applicable.

Strategic Implications:

In accordance with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Objective 1 states:

“1.1 Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

1.1.4 Enhance and maintain the City’s infrastructure, assets and community facilities to provide a safe, sustainable and functional environment”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The new vehicle is a Euro 6 model that has lower emissions than the vehicle currently in service.

Financial/Budget Implications:

An amount of $380,000 was allocated in the 2017/18 Capital Budget for the replacement of the existing side arm rubbish truck to be utilised by the City’s Waste Services and the tendered price is within budget.

Comments:

The submissions by both Tenderers were very competitive and both would provide the required level of service requested. However, following a detailed assessment it was considered that the Truck Centre’s submission (Volvo chassis with a Bucher Municipal compactor) provided the best value for money.

A Tender Evaluation Summary is included in Confidential Attachment 1 and contains further information on the evaluation.

The trade-in value offered by Truck Centre WA is not considered to be the most financially advantageous option so the trade-in offer will not be accepted and the vehicle currently in service will be sent to auction in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

It is recommended that Council approves Tender No. 543/17 from Truck Centre WA Pty Ltd for the supply and delivery of one 22/23m^ᵌ side loading automatic bin lifter refuse truck with a Volvo FE 320 Eu6 fitted with a Bucher Municipal compactor unit.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

10.3 Response to Notice of Motion - Higher Order Waste Management

TRIM Ref: D18/17480

Author: Kylie Hughes, CSO Waste Minimisation

Authoriser: Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation:

That the information be noted.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide Council with an overview of progress with waste management in response to the Notice of Motion that was submitted to Council on the 6 February 2018.

BACKGROUND:

The Notice of Motion submitted by Cr Loden in relation to Higher Order Waste Management, requested Administration to present a report to Council in March 2018 providing an overview of:

1. Progress of the Waste Strategy project (CBP Item 8.1);

2. Improvements to the City’s waste management practices that have been implemented over the past 12 months;

3. Opportunities being explored to further improve the City’s waste management practices over the next 12 months; and

4. Opportunities for the City to engage with other local governments, now and in the future, as part of the Waste Strategy and the City’s ongoing improvement in waste management practices.

DETAILS:

Progress of the Waste Strategy project (CBP Item 8.1)

Draft objectives for the strategy have been developed and elected members were asked to comment on these in December. These comments have been collated and drafting of the strategy document is now underway. Officers are also reviewing the comments received from the Imagine Vincent consultation and monitoring the development of the new State Waste Strategy.

It is anticipated that the draft strategy will be discussed at the Environmental Advisory Group on 16 April and presented to Council as a draft for public consultation on 29 May. The strategy will contain a proposed Action Plan that will guide the City as it develops its waste services to meet the agreed objectives.

Improvements to the City’s waste management practices that have been implemented over the past 12 months

The following improvements to the City’s waste management practices have been implemented in the last 12 months:

· Green waste from the City’s Parks service and green verge collections are now being directed to Balcatta Recycling Centre to ensure that the material is 100% composted, also saving on time and transport costs;

· The City has introduced a sustainable waste management solution for Beatty park Leisure Centre involving the introduction of co-mingled, cardboard and food waste services which has halved the amount of waste the Centre sends to landfill;

· The City now separates illegally dumped waste from parks waste removal to understand tonnages and identify hotspot locations for actioning by Rangers;

· A 140l domestic smaller bin study is underway and will be used to inform the development of the Waste Strategy;

· The City has undertaken waste composition studies which is key data needed to inform the Waste Strategy;

· The City continues to support Responsible Cafes, an international program that encourages cafés to offer a discount to customers who bring their own cup; when cafes sign up they receive a poster to display which includes the City’s logo; and

· A reduction in illegal dumping at leased buildings through bin store improvements.

Opportunities being explored to further improve the City’s waste management practices over the next 12 months; and

The emerging themes arising from the development of the Waste Strategy will likely result in the exploration of the following opportunities to improve the City’s waste management practices in the following areas:

· Recovery of organic material from the waste stream – both food and garden waste;

· Bulk waste service – options for service improvement and increased material recovery;

· Specific solutions to improve collection and waste recovery in multi-unit developments;

· Alternatives to landfill – i.e. alternative waste treatment options to improve recovery;

· Education and promotional campaign programs to improve resident participation in waste recovery;

· Waste charge options that could incentivise recovery and discourage waste generation; and

· Commercial collection – options for the City to provide these services.

Officers are working with MRC and TAFE (TV and Film department, Leederville) to develop community education materials for the newly proposed: “Face your Waste” campaign.

The City has agreed a Community Composting Pilot which will get underway in the coming months.

Opportunities for the City to engage with other local governments, now and in the future, as part of the Waste Strategy and the City’s ongoing improvement in waste management practices

Any of the areas of improvement being investigated through the Waste Strategy could be delivered in conjunction with other local governments. Some of the specific actions involving other local governments actively being pursued at present are:

· Cities of Perth and Stirling (and WALGA) for better practice in multi-unit developments;

· City of Stirling - Balcatta for improved bulk waste recovery;

· City of Perth - food waste collections in the commercial sector; and

· Alternative waste technology options through Mindarie Regional Council and its other member councils.

CONSULTATION/ADVERTISING:

Not applicable.

LEGAL/POLICY:

Not applicable.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

STRATEGIC IMPLICAITONS:

This initiative aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Physical Activity Plan 2013-2017 and the

Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016.

In accordance with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Objective 1 states:

“Natural and Built Environment

1.1 Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure

1.1.3 Take action to reduce the City’s environmental impacts and provide leadership on environmental matters”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

COMMENTS:

The City has made good progress in the last 12 months and there are significant opportunities to further improve how the City manages waste. The key document to guide the City into the future will be the Waste Strategy which is under development and is planned to be reported to Council as a draft for community consultation on the 29 May.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

11 Corporate Services

11.1 Financial Statements as at 31 January 2018

TRIM Ref: D18/22966

Author: Cheryl Liddelow, Accounting Officer

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Financial Statements as at 31 January 2018

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Financial Statements for the month ended 31 January 2018 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the Financial Statements for the period ended 31 January 2018.

Background:

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to prepare each month a statement of financial activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the budget.

A statement of financial activity report is to be in a form that sets out:

· the annual budget estimates;

· budget estimates for the end of the month to which the statement relates;

· actual amounts of expenditure, revenue and income for the end of the month to which the statement relates;

· material variances between the year-to-date income and expenditure; and

· includes other supporting notes and other information that the local government considers will assist in the interpretation of the report.

In addition to the above, under Regulation 34 (5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, each financial year a local government is to adopt a percentage of value, calculated in accordance with AAS 5, to be used in statements of financial activity for reporting material variances.

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1 represent the Statement of Financial Activity for the period ending 31 January 2018:

Note	Description	Page

1.	Statement of Financial Activity by Programme Report and Graph	1-3
2.	Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type Report	4
3.	Net Current Funding Position	5
4.	Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas	6-67
5.	Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule	68-81
6.	Cash Backed Reserves	82
7.	Rating Information and Graph	83-84
8.	Debtor Report	85
9.	Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position	86

The following table provides a summary view of the year to date actual, compared to the Revised and Year to date Budget.

Summary of Financial Activity by Programme as at 31 January 2018

			Revised Budget		YTD Budget		YTD Actual		Variance		Variance
			2017/18		Jan-18		Jan-18		Jan-18		Jan-18
			$		$		$		$		%
REVENUE		22,397,993		13,679,536		13,098,116		(581,420)		-4%

EXPENDITURE		(57,017,898)		(33,631,478)		(31,827,564)		1,803,914		-5%

NET OPERATING EXCLUDING RATES		(34,619,905)		(19,951,942)		(18,729,448)		1,222,494		-6%

OPERATING ACTIVITIES EXCLUDED FROM BUDGET
NON-CASH EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE
	Add Deferred Rates Adjustment		0		0		9,237		9,237		0%
	Add Back Depreciation		9,663,980		5,637,233		5,968,387		331,154		6%
	(Profit)/Loss on Asset Disposals		(411,373)		(411,373)		(114,570)		296,803		-72%
	"Percent for Art" and "Cash in Lieu" Funds Adjustment		0		0		0		0		0%
AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATING ACTIVITIES		9,252,607		5,225,860		5,863,053		637,193		12%

INVESTING ACTIVITIES
	Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions		2,712,344		962,493		1,021,186		58,693		6%
	Capital Expenditure		(13,379,565)		(9,375,602)		(2,850,202)		6,525,400		-70%
	Proceeds from Joint Venture Operations		333,333		333,333		166,667		(166,666)		-50%
	Proceeds from Disposal of assets		204,500		204,500		290,438		85,938		42%
			(10,129,388)		(7,875,276)		(1,371,911)		6,503,365		-83%

FINANCING ACTIVITIES
	Repayments Loan Capital		(881,398)		(504,817)		(504,816)		2		0%
	Transfers from Reserves		1,342,875		1,009,790		189,037		(820,753)		-81%
	Transfers to Reserves		(1,850,534)		(1,220,285)		(382,305)		837,980		-69%
			(1,389,057)		(715,312)		(698,084)		17,229		-2%

	Plus: Surplus/(Deficiency) Brought Fwd 1 July 2017		3,946,211		3,946,211		4,475,026		528,816		13%
	Surplus/(Deficiency) Before General Rates		(32,939,532)		(19,370,459)		(10,461,363)		8,909,096		-46%
	Total amount raised from General Rates		32,939,532		32,831,192		32,889,249		58,057		0%

NET CURRENT ASSETS at JUNE 30 C/FWD - SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)		0		13,460,733		22,427,885		8,967,153		67%

Comments on Summary of Financial Activity by Programme:

Operating Revenue

There is a difference in classification of revenue reported by Programme and by Nature and Type. Operating revenue by Programme reporting includes ‘Profit on Sale of Assets’, but this is excluded in the Nature and Type report, however ‘Rates’ revenue is added.

Revenue by programme is showing a negative variance of 4% ($581k). This is due to lower revenue in Other Property and Services $314k (asset disposals), Recreation and Culture of $244k (facility hire and Beatty Park), and Transport of $154k (predominantly parking infringement revenue which is expected to improve). It should be noted that there is positive variance of $136k in Health.

Operating Revenue as presented on the ‘Nature and Type’ report (Page 4 of Attachment 1) is showing a negative variance of 1%.

Operating Expenditure

Expenditure by programme is showing a favourable variance of 5% ($1.80m), this is due to lower expenditure in Community Amenities $581k, Recreation and Culture $613k, Transport $417k, and Education and Welfare $89k. Similarly, the operating expenditure listed under the Nature and Type report reflects a corresponding favourable variance of 5%, with the largest variances in Employee Costs, Materials and Contracts and Depreciation on Non-current Assets.

Transfer from Reserves

Transfer from Reserves is aligned with the timing of Capital Works projects that are Reserve funded. Most of these projects have not yet started.

Capital Expenditure

The variance is attributed to timing on commencement of projects. For further detail, refer to Note 5 on Attachment 1.

Transfer to Reserves

Monthly transfer to reserves commenced in July 2017 except for the Tamala Park Land Sale Reserve which is transferred when actual funds are received.

Opening Funding Surplus / (Deficit)

The surplus opening balance brought forward from 2016/17 is $4,035,268, as compared to the revised budget opening surplus balance of $3,946,211 after end of year carry forward adjustments. The actual surplus as per the 2016/17 was $4,475,026, this reflects an improvement of $529k over the anticipated end of year result for 2016/17.

Closing Surplus / (Deficit)

There is currently a surplus of $22,427,885, compared to year to date budget surplus of $13,460,733. This is substantially attributed to the positive variance in operating expenditure, current level of capital expenditure and the increase shown in the opening balance.

It should be noted that the closing balance does not represent cash on hand (please see the Net Current Funding Position on page 5 of the attachment).

Comments on the financial performance as set out in the Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 1) and an explanation of each report is detailed below:

1. Statement of Financial Activity by Programme Report (Note 1 Page 1)

This statement of Financial Activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by Programme.

2. Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type Report (Note 2 Page 4)

This statement of Financial Activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by nature and type.

3. Net Current Funding Position (Note 3 Page 5)

Net Current Assets is the difference between the current assets and current liabilities, less committed assets and restricted assets. This amount indicates how much capital is available for day to day activities. The net current funding position as at 31 January 2018 is $22,427,885.

4. Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 67)

This statement shows a summary of operating revenue and expenditure by Service Unit.

5. Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 68 - 81)

The following table is a summary of the ‘2017/2018 Capital Expenditure Budget by programme’, which compares year to date budget with actual expenditure to date. The full Capital Works Programme is listed in detail in Note 5 of Attachment 1.

	Revised Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Land and Buildings	2,351,801	1,696,801	435,124	81%
Infrastructure Assets	8,329,870	5,186,907	1,744,172	79%
Plant and Equipment	1,583,747	1,543,747	531,412	66%
Furniture and Equipment	1,114,147	948,147	139,494	87%
Total	13,379,565	9,375,602	2,850,202	79%


FUNDING	Revised Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Own Source Funding - Municipal	9,119,846	7,198,819	1,349,541	85%
Cash Backed Reserves	1,342,875	1,009,790	189,037	86%
Capital Grant and Contribution	2,712,344	962,493	1,021,186	62%
Other (Disposals/Trade In)	204,500	204,500	290,438	-42%
Total	13,379,565	9,375,602	2,850,202	79%

Note: Detailed analysis is included on page 68 - 81 of Attachment 1.

6. Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 82)

The Cash Backed Reserves schedule details movements in the reserves, including transfers and funds used, comparing actual results with the annual budget. The balance as at 31 January 2018 is $9,101,387.

7. Rating Information (Note 7 Page 83 – 84)

The notices for rates and charges levied for 2017/18 were issued on 07 August 2017.

The Local Government Act 1995 provides for ratepayers to pay rates by four (4) instalments. The due dates for each instalment are:

First Instalment	12 September 2017
Second Instalment	06 November 2017
Third Instalment	08 January 2018
Fourth Instalment	06 March 2018

To cover the costs involved in providing the instalment programme the following charge and interest rates apply:

Instalment Administration Charge

(to apply to second, third, and fourth instalment)

$13.00 per instalment

Instalment Interest Rate

5.5% per annum

Late Payment Penalty Interest

11% per annum

Pensioners registered with the City for rate concessions do not incur the above interest or charge.

The Rates debtors balance to be collected as at 31 January 2018 is $5,689,067 (this includes deferred rates of $100,508). This represents 15.72% of the collectable income compared to 14.74% at the same time last year.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 85)

Receivables of $4,052,745 are outstanding as at 31 January 2018, of which $2,954,711 has been outstanding over 90 days. This is comprised of:

· $2,394,843 (81.1%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), who then collect the outstanding balance and return the funds to the City for a fee.

· $353,980 (12%) relates to Cash in Lieu Parking. Some Cash in Lieu Parking debtors have special payment arrangements over more than one year.

· $205,887 (7%) relates to Other Receivables, including recoverable works and property.

Administration has been following up outstanding items which relate to Other Receivables by issuing reminders when they are overdue and formal debt collection when payments remain outstanding.

9. Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position Report (Note 9 Page 86)

As at 31 January 2018 the operating deficit for the Centre was $619,283 in comparison to the year to date budgeted deficit of $230,880. This unfavourable outcome is primarily due to higher depreciation expense being incurred as a result of the latest Fair Value Revaluation.

Once the depreciation component has been deducted, the cash position showed a current cash surplus of $58,057 in comparison to year to date budget estimate of a cash surplus of $88,173.

10. Explanation of Material Variances

All material variances as at 31 January 2018 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

The materiality thresholds used for reporting variances are 10% and $10,000. This means that variances will be analysed and separately reported when they are more than 10% (+/-) of the YTD budget, where that variance exceeds $10,000 (+/-). This threshold was adopted by Council as part of the Budget adoption for 2017/18 and is used in the preparation of the statements of financial activity when highlighting material variance in accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34(1) (d).

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to prepare an annual financial report for the preceding year and such other financial reports as are prescribed.

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires the local government to prepare each month, a statement of financial activity reporting on the source and application of funds as set out in the adopted Annual Budget.

A statement of financial activity and any accompanying documents are to be presented at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council within two months after the end of the month to which the statement relates.

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, specifies that a local government is not to incur expenditure from its Municipal Fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure is authorised in advance by an absolute majority decision of Council.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Provision of monthly financial reports fulfils a statutory requirement.

Strategic Implications:

Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

“4.1 Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management:

4.1.2 Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner;

(a) Continue to adopt best practice to ensure the financial resources and assets of the City are responsibly managed and the quality of services, performance procedures and processes is improved and enhanced.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.

Comments:

The capital works schedule includes an item for the unbudgeted purchase of an Engineering tools trailer. This was the replacement of an existing trailer due to age and poor condition. As this is classified as a capital expenditure item, it is required to be reflected in the capital works schedule, however it is noted that there was no specific budget provision and the purchase was not approved in advance by Council in accordance with section 6.8 of the Act. The budget provision will be addressed in the mid-year budget review.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

11.3 Adoption of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017

TRIM Ref: D17/161061

Author: Tim Evans, Manager Governance and Risk

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 - version for the government gazette

2. Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 - tracked changes version

3. Consolidated Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 - tracked changes version

4. Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 - Summary of Submissions

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. MAKES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the City of Vincent Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 included as Attachment 1;

2. NOTES the purpose and effect of the local law as:

Purpose

Effect

The effect of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 is to rename the Standing Orders Local Law 2008 to become the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 and to make minor amendments to the procedures for conducting Council meetings;

3. NOTES:

3.1 the minor amendments to the version of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 that was advertised for public comment;

3.2 that Administration will publish the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 in the Government Gazette in accordance with s3.12(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 noting that a copy will be sent to the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts;

3.3 that Administration will give local public notice, in accordance with s3.12(6) of the Local Government Act 1995; and

3.4 that following Gazettal, in accordance with the Local Laws Explanatory Memoranda Directions as issued by the Minister on 12 November 2010, a copy of the local law and a duly completed explanatory memorandum signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer will be sent to the Western Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the submission received as a result of the public comment period on the proposed Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 and to adopt the proposed local law.

Background:

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 19 September 2017, Council approved the City of Vincent Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017, for the purposes of public comment.

The purpose of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 is to make a number of minor amendments to the principal City of Vincent Standing Orders Local Law 2008 to allow for the orderly conduct of meetings of Council meetings. The effect of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 is to rename the Standing Orders Local Law 2008 to become the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 and to make minor amendments to the procedures for conducting Council meetings.

At its ordinary meeting held on 6 February 2018, Council received a report (Agenda Item 11.3) recommending adoption of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017. Council deferred consideration of this item in order to examine the merit of amending clause 7.1 of the Local Law, dealing with a procedural motion to defer an item. Various options were discussed at a subsequent Council Workshop, however feedback from Council Members was inconclusive and therefore Administration is not proposing any change to the local law. Consequently the remainder of this report and its attachments are unchanged from those presented at Council’s 6 February 2018 meeting.

Details:

The Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 amends the principal local law which is the Standing Orders Local Law 2008. Significantly, the title of the Standing Orders Local Law 2008 is amended so that it becomes the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008. An administrative version of the consolidated Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 is included as Attachment 3. The following is a summary of the changes that will result through the adoption of the proposed Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017:

Item #	Proposed Change	Reason
Name	The name of the local law will be amended from "Standing Orders" to "Meeting Procedures"	It is considered that the name change will make the law more recognisable and accessible to the general public.
N/A	The term "Council Member" is proposed to be used in place of "Councillor" as appropriate.	To align with the nomenclature in general use by the City of Vincent.
1.6	The definition of “Presiding Member” will be amended so that it matches the definition of “Presiding Member” in the WALGA model local law.	To align with standard industry practice.
1.6	The definition of “document” will be amended so that it matches the definition of “document” in the FOI Act.	To align with current legislation.
1.6	It is proposed to standardise the definitions so that defined words are not capitalised unless they are names or proper nouns. (“agenda”, “closed doors”, “document”, “employee”).	To align with standard industry practice.
2.2(1)(b)	Clause 2.2(1)(b) - which is a requirement to sign the notice of meeting, will be deleted	It is considered that the need for notice papers to be physically signed is no longer necessary.
2.2(1)(e)	Remove references to delivering agendas by physical post.	It is no longer considered necessary to post hard copies of meeting papers.
2.3	Include a requirement for the City to post meeting notice papers on its website.	The City's website is overwhelmingly the place where people visit to access this information.
2.8(5)	In the order of business, state that "confidential items" will be considered at the end and minor rephrasing.	To align the local law with current practice.
2.9(1)	It is proposed to remove the requirement to provide leave of absence applications at least one hour before the commencement of the meeting.	The clause is not considered necessary.
2.16	It is proposed to recognise that Council Meetings are web streamed and also give the power to the Presiding Member to decide to stop or start the web stream.	Aligns the Standing Orders with the City's adopted position on web streaming Council Meetings.
2.18(6)	It is proposed to remove the requirement to "bind" or paste the minutes or to keep a "minutes book".	This clause is no longer considered necessary. Minutes will be kept in line with normal recordkeeping practice for any other permanent record.
2.19(6)(a)	The requirement to state a person's address will be replaced by a requirement to state their suburb of residence or the location of a business that they are representing.	To better protect the privacy of members of the public.
2.19(6)(c)	Clarify that each person can only speak once during public question time.	To align the local law with current practice.
2.19(9)	Preclude a list of written questions from being considered as being "asked" during public question time.	To clarify the intent of the local law in relation to the process for asking questions at Council Meetings.
2.22	Extend the power to approve deputations to "the Mayor or presiding member" rather than simply "the Mayor"	To cater for circumstances where the Mayor may be absent and unable to preside.
2.24(5)	Include a requirement for the CEO to nominate an officer who will be responsible for dealing with the petition.	To formalise and clarify the process for having petitions dealt with by the organisation.
4.7	Allow for the moving of a Notice of Motion by the Presiding Member.	To provide an avenue for the Presiding Member to raise matters at Council.
5.2(3)	Allow for the possibility of electronic voting.	To provide future options for using voting technology at Council Meetings.
6.1	Delete reference to clause 3.6.4 which does not exist.	To amend an error in the local law.
8.10 and 8.11	Delete explicit prohibitions on alcohol consumption and smoking.	The clause is no longer considered necessary as smoking and alcohol consumption are already prohibited under other legislation and the City's code of conduct.
9.79(2)	Addition of power for the presiding member to require a person to "be seated".	To increase the powers of the presiding member to deal with unruly behaviour.
12.9	It is proposed to include recognition of "Council Briefings" and remove "forums".	To align the local law with current practice.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public notice of the proposed City of Vincent Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 was given in accordance with sections 3.12(3)(a) and (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995. Accordingly, advertisements were placed on the City's website, in The West Australian on 11 October 2017, The Perth Voice on 14 October 2017 and The Guardian Express on 17 October 2017 as well as posted on the City's notice boards and publicised on social media. In addition a letter was also sent to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries ("the Department") requesting feedback.

The submission period closed on 9 December 2017 with one submission being received. A summary of the submission along with Administration's comments is included in Attachment 4. In total the submission suggested a total of 18 minor amendments to the local law of which five are supported or partially supported by Administration. These have resulted in ~~three~~ four proposed minor amendments to the advertised draft local law which as follows:

· Inclusion of a requirement for the City to publish the agenda (notice paper) on its website;

· Rephrasing of the words in clause 2.8(5) to improve clarity;

· Extension of the power to approve deputations to "the Mayor or presiding member" rather than simply "the Mayor"; and

· Allowing the presiding member to move a Notice of Motion.

The Department provided feedback with respect to the form of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 which has also resulted in Administration making a number of minor amendments to the version of the local law that was advertised. The changes were administrative in nature and have resulted in several minor changes to the proposed Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017. None of the amendments alter the effect of the principal local law.

Legal/Policy:

Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 sets out the procedural requirements for the making of a local law:

"3.12. Procedure for making local laws

(1) In making a local law a local government is to follow the procedure described in this section, in the sequence in which it is described.

(2A) Despite subsection (1), a failure to follow the procedure described in this section does not invalidate a local law if there has been substantial compliance with the procedure.

(2) At a council meeting the person presiding is to give notice to the meeting of the purpose and effect of the proposed local law in the prescribed manner.”

(3) The local government is to —

(a) give Statewide public notice stating that —

(i) the local government proposes to make a local law the purpose and effect of which is summarized in the notice; and

(ii) a copy of the proposed local law may be inspected or obtained at any place specified in the notice; and

(iii) submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local government before a day to be specified in the notice, being a day that is not less than 6 weeks after the notice is given; and

(b) as soon as the notice is given, give a copy of the proposed local law and a copy of the notice to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister; and

(c) provide a copy of the proposed local law, in accordance with the notice, to any person requesting it.

(3a) A notice under subsection (3) is also to be published and exhibited as if it were a local public notice.

(4) After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any submissions made and may make the local law* as proposed or make a local law* that is not significantly different from what was proposed.

* Absolute majority required.

(5) After making the local law, the local government is to publish it in the Gazette and give a copy of it to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister.

(6) After the local law has been published in the Gazette the local government is to give local public notice

(a) stating the title of the local law; and

(b) summarising the purpose and effect of the local law (specifying the day on which it comes into operation); and

(c) advising that copies of the local law may be inspected or obtained from the local government’s office.

(7) The Minister may give directions to local governments requiring them to provide to the Parliament copies of local laws they have made and any explanatory or other material relating to them.

(8) In this section — making in relation to a local law, includes making a local law to amend the text of, or repeal, a local law."

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is not considered that the adoption of the Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2017 will have a significant effect on the City's risk profile.

Strategic Implications:

In keeping with the City’s Plan for the Future – Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023 – the following Objectives state:

‘4.1: Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management.

4.1.5 Focus on stakeholder needs, values, engagement and involvement.’

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are nominal costs associated with making the local law, including advertising and Gazettal which can be expended from the City's operating budget.

Comments:

The proposed changes are primarily minor in nature and are largely adequately explained in the table in the "DETAILS" section of this report. However, the sections below provide further comment on several particular amendments in order to clarify the reasons behind these proposals.

Change of Name of the Local Law

Administration has consulted with the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries in relation to the proposed change of name of the local law and whether it was preferable to change the name through an amendment or by repealing the current local law and making a new one. The advice received was that while both options were appropriate, an amendment was considered to be preferable in all instances where there was not considerable redrafting of sections of the law, such as in this case. Amendment local laws are considered to be easier to adopt because with any amendment local law, only the items that are being changed (3 pages) are considered and assessed by the Joint Standing Committee for Delegated Legislation. If a new local law was made, the entire new local law (44 pages) would be assessed. This would also have an impact on the fees charged to the City to gazette the local law which are related to its length.

Requirement to State Address

The requirement for a person to state their name and address when addressing Council has long been standard practice in local government. Administration notes that in the past decade there has been a change in expectations around the level of privacy of people’s personal information, which has been brought to the fore by the new paradigm of accessibility to information made available via the web. In light of these changing expectations, Administration considers that the public interest in soliciting and recording the address of people who ask public questions no longer outweighs the privacy concerns of a number of members of the public and may act as a barrier to public participation at Council meetings. Consequently, it is proposed to amend this section of the local law and require only that a person must state their name and the suburb in which they reside.

Recognition of Council Briefings

Council at its meeting on 4 November 2014 resolved to move to a monthly meeting cycle in 2015, comprising monthly Council Briefings and Council Meetings. Council Briefings occur on the Tuesday of the week prior to the Ordinary Council Meeting and provide Council Members with the opportunity to ask questions and clarify issues relevant to the specific agenda items due to be presented to Council in the following week. The Council Briefing is not a decision-making forum and the Council has no power to make decisions at the Council Briefing. To date, Council Briefings have not been covered by the Standing Orders Local Law 2008. However, the City invariably holds public question time at the start of the meeting and follows the practice of declaring any interests relating to items on the agenda. It is proposed that these practices be formalised by amending the local law to stipulate that these sections of the local law apply to Council Briefings.

Recognition of Web Streaming

At its meeting on 7 March 2017, Council resolved to commence web streaming of Council Meetings and Briefing Sessions in order to improve the transparency and public access to the decision making process. Live streaming was implemented from the 30 May 2017 meeting onwards. Minor amendments to the local law have been proposed, to recognise Council's decision in relation to web streaming and the role that it plays in the conduct of Council meetings. It also clarifies powers of the Presiding Member and Council to stop and start web streaming during the meeting.

Notice of Motions from the Presiding Member

After being raised through the public submission process, further research into practices at other local governments has demonstrated that the restriction preventing the Presiding Member from moving or seconding a Notice of Motion appears to be particular to the City of Vincent. It is common for Notice of Motions to be moved by Presiding Members at other local governments. The City's current practice typically sees another Council Member moving a Notice of Motion on behalf of the presiding member which Administration considers to be an unnecessary complication. It is therefore proposed to amend clause 4.7 to allow the Presiding Member to move a Notice of Motion.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

11.4 Draft Financial Reserves Policy

TRIM Ref: D18/12692

Author: John Paton, Special Projects Officer

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Financial Reserves Policy (Marked Up)

2. Financial Reserves Listing

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. ENDORSES for the purpose of giving of one month local public notice:

1.1. the draft Financial Reserves Policy No 1.2.10 as detailed in Attachment 1;

1.2. the closure of the following Reserves and transfer of remaining balances to the Asset Sustainability Reserve:

Reserve	Reason/Justification	Balance
Administration Centre	No longer required, use Asset Sustainability Reserve	$1,156
Aged Person and Senior Citizens	No longer required	$0
Capital	Not specific, no linkage to liabilities in LTFP	$8,501
Electronic Equipment	Minor liability, use Asset Sustainability Reserve	$54,175
Parking Funded City Centre and Parking Benefit Districts…	Not specific, no linkage to liabilities in LTFP	$0
Parking Funded Sustainable Transport Initiatives	No linkage to liabilities in LTFP	$0
Perth Oval	No longer required	$0

1.3. the following Reserve purpose amendments:

Title and Current Purpose

Proposed Purpose

Cash-in-Lieu of Parking

This reserve is established from payment of cash-in-lieu of car parking from development applicants and is to be used for the upgrade of existing car parking facilities or the establishment of new car parking facilities and associated infrastructure.

This reserve is established from payment of cash-in-lieu of car parking from development applicants and is to be used for providing and/or upgrading existing and proposed Transport infrastructure as defined in the City’s Parking and Access Policy 7.7.1.

Loftus Community Centre

For the redevelopment of the Centre, including upgrade / renovation / maintenance / repairs and replacement of major items of plant, equipment, fixtures and fittings.

For the purpose of capital improvements, including replacing major items of plant and equipment or renewal and modifications to the Centre.

Loftus Recreation Centre

For the upgrade / renovation / maintenance / repairs of the centre and the purpose of replacing major items of plant, equipment, fixtures and fittings.

For the purpose of capital improvements, including replacing major items of plant and equipment or renewal and modifications to the Centre.

Parking Facility

For the:

· purchase, maintenance and operations of parking ticket machines;

· provision and improvement of parking information systems;

· security lighting, improved pathways and associated infrastructure to access parking areas;

and associated works.

For the:

· purchase and replacement of parking ticket machines;

· provision and improvement of parking information systems;

· security lighting, improved pathways and associated infrastructure to access parking areas;

and associated works.

State Gymnastics Centre

For works associated with the maintenance, repairs, alterations, upgrade and replacement of the proposed State Gymnastics Centre building, major plant, equipment, fixtures, fittings and associated land.

For the purpose of capital improvements, including replacing major items of plant and equipment or renewal and modifications to the Centre.

2. NOTES that a further report will be submitted to Council following the one month consultation period in 1 above

Purpose of Report:

To consider for adoption a draft Financial reserves Policy to guide the establishment and management of Reserves in the future.

Background:

The Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) establishes controls over the creation and use of Reserve Accounts. Specifically, section 6.11(1) states that “where a local government wishes to set aside money for use for a purpose in a future financial year, it is to establish and maintain a reserve account for each such purpose”. This provision also stipulates that before a local government changes the purpose of a reserve account or uses the money for another purpose, it must give one month’s local public notice. The primary exception to this rule is if the change is disclosed in the annual budget.

Section 6.2 (4)(e) of the Act specifies that the Annual Budget is to include “details of the amounts to be set aside in, or used from, reserve accounts and of the purpose for which they are to be set aside or used”.

Further controls are provided through the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, including the requirement that a “reserve account is to have a title that clearly identifies the purpose for which the money in the account is set aside”.

In 1995/96, the City (then Town) had five cash-backed Financial Reserves (Reserves) with total funds of $2.6m. The following year that had grown to 10 ($4.4m) and by the end of 1996/97 there were 13 Reserves with a total funding of $5.5m. Over the years, additional Reserves have been created for specific purposes, with the Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2017 listing 29 Reserves with a total closing balance of $6.2m.

Details:

A review has been undertaken into the 29 Reserves listed in the latest Annual Financial Report, with the following general points identified:

· seven of the Reserves have a $0 balance;

· the Heritage Loan Reserve and Public Open Space Reserve were formally closed (rescinded) by Council on 5 July 2011. In addition, Council approved on 8 March 2016 the transfer to Trust of the funds held in the Aged Persons and Senior Citizens Reserve, which can also be closed, resulting in 26 Reserves remaining;

· Of the 26 Reserves, their purpose generally falls within the following categories:

Asset Renewal / Replacement 11

Asset Maintenance and Renewal 3 a wider purpose allowing funding of maintenance

Asset Upgrade 1

Specific 7

Other – Non-Specific 4

Total 26

In addition, the following was identified in respect to specific Reserves:

RESERVE	ISSUE/COMMENT
Beatty Park Leisure Centre	Early annual reports referenced the Reserve would be funded from the centre’s ‘before depreciation operating surplus’. This does not appear to have been consistently followed and the principle may warrant review.
Cash-in-Lieu of Parking	There is an inconsistency between the adopted purpose of the Reserve and the purpose specified in section 2.2.4 of the Parking and Access Policy (7.7.1).
Leederville Tennis	Potential inconsistency with Lease responsibility.
Loftus Community Centre	There is an inconsistency between the adopted purpose of the Reserve and the Lease provision governing the payment of contributions by the Lessee.
Loftus Recreation Centre	There is an inconsistency between the adopted purpose of the Reserve and the Lease provision governing the payment of contributions by the Lessee.
North Perth Tennis	Potential inconsistency with Lease responsibility.
Percent for Public Art	Purpose must align with section 2.2 and 2.3 of Policy 7.5.13.
State Gymnastics Centre	There is an inconsistency between the adopted purpose of the Reserve and the Lease provision governing the payment of contributions by the Lessee.
Strategic Waste Management	When established, it was identified that the Reserve would be funded from the MRC lease payments. This does not appear to have been consistently followed.

Consultation/Advertising:

Section 6.11 of the Act as detailed below, requires a one month local public notice before changing the purpose of a Reserve or using the money for another purpose. The Community Consultation Policy 4.1.5 extends this to include notice on the Council’s website and letters to local business and community groups.

In addition to the above, Policy 4.1.5 provides that for new Policies, consultation will consist of:

· Local Public Notice for 21 days

· Letter to local Business and Community Groups.

It is proposed that these two elements of consultation occur simultaneously.

Legal/Policy:

Local Government Act 1995 (the Act)

6.11. Reserve accounts

(1) Subject to subsection (5), where a local government wishes to set aside money for use for a purpose in a future financial year, it is to establish and maintain a reserve account for each such purpose.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), before a local government —

(a) changes* the purpose of a reserve account; or

(b) uses* the money in a reserve account for another purpose,

it must give one month’s local public notice of the proposed change of purpose or proposed use.

(3) A local government is not required to give local public notice under subsection (2) —

(a) where the change of purpose or of proposed use of money has been disclosed in the annual budget of the local government for that financial year; or

(b) in such other circumstances as are prescribed.

(4) A change of purpose of, or use of money in, a reserve account is to be disclosed in the annual financial report for the year in which the change occurs.

(5) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances and the manner in which a local government may set aside money for use for a purpose in a future financial year without the requirement to establish and maintain a reserve account.

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996

17. Reserve accounts, title of etc.

(1) A reserve account is to have a title that clearly identifies the purpose for which the money in the account is set aside.

(2) In the accounts, annual budget and financial reports of the local government a reserve account is to be referred to —

(a) in the information required by regulations 27(g) and 38, by its full title; and

(b) otherwise, by its full title or by an abbreviation of that title.

27. Notes to annual budget, when required

The annual budget is to include or be accompanied by notes detailing —

(g) in relation to each reserve account, an estimate of —

(i) the opening balance brought forward on 1 July; and

(ii) the amount to be set aside during the financial year; and

(iii) the amount to be used during the financial year; and

(iv) the closing balance at 30 June;

and

(h) if all or part of the money in a reserve account is to be used or set aside for a purpose other than the purpose for which the account was established —

(i) the proposed purpose; and

(ii) an estimate of the amount to be used or set aside; and

(iii) the objects of, and reasons for, the change of use or purpose;

Risk Management Implications:

Low

Strategic Implications:

Plan for the Future – Strategic Plan 2013 – 2023 – Strategic Objectives

“Objective 4.1: Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The intent of the policy is to provide guidance that will lead to enhanced financial sustainability.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The 2017/18 – 2026/27 Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) forecasts that the City’s Reserves will hold a balance of $9.4m at 30 June 2018, rising to $44m by 30 June 2027. However, that forecast must be considered in the context of the following:

· The long term estimates are based on the City’s developing, yet still incomplete understanding of the asset renewal requirements across all asset classes to meet acceptable levels of service and the financial implications of implementing the necessary maintenance renewal and upgrading programs.

· Over 50% of the long term balance is expected to be delivered from the land sale activities of the Tamala Park Regional Council, which is due to be finalised in 2027/28 (subject to market conditions), therefore that funding source is finite.

· Throughout the term of the LTFP, apart from interest, the only contributions reflected are to the Asset Sustainability Reserve and Tamala Park Land Sales Reserve.

· The majority of the then balance of the Tamala Park Land Sales Reserve is being applied to a capital repayment of a loan in 2019/20.

· There is no call on the Reserve funds from 2020/21, however that is a reflection of the forecast level of capital expenditure, which is almost certainly to increase as data is compiled on the asset renewal requirements of the City’s property portfolio.

The Financial Reserves Policy and associated procedures and guidelines will provide better guidance in managing the various Reserves and ensuring appropriate balances are maintained.

Comments:

The establishment of Financial Reserves is an effective financial management strategy, however the City does not currently have a framework for the establishment, review, management and use of its Financial Reserves. As a starting point, a Financial Reserves Policy would provide Administration with direction and guidance on the City’s accepted approach to Financial Reserves.

The adoption of a Financial Reserves Policy will guide the establishment and maintenance of Reserves based on specific criteria, which will indicate when the City should ‘reserve’ funds for significant future liabilities thereby smoothing the impact on rates generation and ratepayers. This will assist in demonstrating the City’s long term financial sustainability.

A draft Financial Reserves Policy has been developed (Attachment 1) with the objective to provide “guidance for the establishment, funding and utilisation of Financial Reserve Accounts to promote sustainable and responsible financial management”. The policy sets the principle that the City will “establish and maintain Financial Reserves as are statutorily, contractually or prudently required for known or reasonably predicted future financial liabilities that require funding over multiple years to avoid unreasonable fluctuations in funding to be made up from Rates”.

Given that the Act allows for the purpose of a Reserve to be changed or the money to be used for another purpose, it is important to recognise and record when there are other factors impacting on the Council’s discretionary capacity to approve alternative uses for the Reserve funds. In this instance, it is noted that 9 of the 26 Reserves have an ‘external’ restriction imposed either contractually or through legislation.

To support the Policy, procedures and guidelines will be developed and a register maintained for each Reserve, recording key details and providing further clarity on the application of the funds in accordance with the approved purpose of the Reserve and linkage to any nominated funding source and external restrictions needing to be recognised. A standard template has been created to record relevant information in respect to each Reserve to include the following information:

RESERVE NAME: Reserve title that identifies the purpose for which the money in the account is set aside.

PURPOSE: Expanding on the Title to clearly define the purpose of the Reserve and application of the funds.

CLASSIFICATION: Records whether the funds are internally or externally restricted.

CATEGORY: Opportunity to categorise the purpose of the Reserve, i.e. ‘Asset Renewal/Replacement’.

FUNDING SOURCE: Specifying how the Reserve will be funded.

DATE ESTABLISHED: Date Council approved the Reserve (if known).

DATE AMENDED: If Council has amended the original Reserve purpose etc.

LINKED RESTRICTION: Reference to external restriction - funding agreement, lease etc

LINKED PROJECT: Specific projects being funded (listed on LTFP)

PROJECT TIMING: Specific, ongoing etc.

FUNDING DEMAND: Target balance required (if known)

INTEREST CREDITED: Is interest to be credited to the Reserve to maintain parity.

ACCEPTABLE USE: Expand on the purpose to provide specific examples of how the funds could be applied.

UNACCEPTABLE USE: Examples of what would not be consistent with the approved purpose.

COMMENTS: Any relevant information.

The current list of Reserves have been reviewed and relevant details incorporated into the standard guidelines template, which are appended for information to Attachment 1. In addition, Attachment 2 provides further details on each Reserve, including financial balances.

Overall, it is considered that the number of Reserves could be reduced, particularly those with an identified use category of ‘Asset Renewal / Replacement’, subject to external restrictions. In addition, it is recognised that in a number of instances, there is no clear linkage between the Reserve and future liabilities set in the LTFP. Based on the information compiled, the following is highlighted:

Reserve	Retain	Comments
Administration Centre	N	No external restrictions, so any works could be funded from the Asset Sustainability Reserve.
Aged Persons and Senior Citizens	N	Funds transferred to Trust, no ongoing requirement.
Asset Sustainability	Y
Beatty Park Leisure Centre	Y	Records indicate funding for the Reserve was to be made from transfers representing the before depreciation operating surplus of the Centre. Whilst the facility does not always make a profit, this restriction means it would never provide a ‘dividend’ back to the community (other than those using it).
Capital	N	Not specific, very limited funds and no liability in LTFP.
Cash-in-Lieu of Parking	Y	Purpose should be amended to align with Policy 7.7.1.
Electronic Equipment	N	No external restrictions, liabilities shouldn’t create significant demand and any expenditure could be funded from the Asset Sustainability Reserve if required.
Heritage Loan	N	Rescinded 5 July 2011
Hyde Park Lakes	Y	Wider than asset renewal.
Land and Building Asset Acquisition	Y	May warrant further clarification of Purpose.
Leederville Oval	Y	Asset renewal planning required to identify long term funding demand. Likely to be well beyond current level. Unless funding source agreed with football clubs, which would introduce an external restriction, this Reserve could be closed and rely on the Asset Sustainability Reserve.
Leederville Tennis	Y	Clarity required on link between the requirement for the Club to pay a contribution and whether the City accepts responsibility for the associated works.
Light Fleet Replacement	N	Annual expenditure level (or variations) should not warrant the retention of the Reserve. Review with LTFP.
Loftus Community Centre	Y	Purpose needs to be amended to align with the restriction imposed through the Lease.
Loftus Recreation Centre	Y	Purpose needs to be amended to align with the restriction imposed through the Lease.
North Perth Tennis	Y	Clarity required on link between the requirement for the Club to pay a contribution and whether the City accepts responsibility for the associated works.
Office Building - 246 Vincent Street	Y	As this is an income generating asset, with Lessor asset obligations, it is proposed this Reserve be maintained and consistently funded from a portion of rent.
Parking Facility	Y	Purpose may need amendment as it is not considered appropriate for Reserve funds to be applied towards operational expenditure. Project planning required to clarify funding demand.
Parking Funded City Centre and Parking Benefit Districts Upgrade and Promotion	N	Purpose is very broad, restricted only by location. Demand is not clear and so would not meet the principles proposed in the Policy.
Parking Funded Sustainable Transport Initiatives	N	The Reserve appears to have been established to recognise a policy position, not to recognise a known or reasonably predicted liability.
Percentage For Public Art	Y	Funds are currently held in Trust.
Perth Oval	N	Whilst this facility is leased to the State Government, there should be no capital or renewal obligations on the City.
Plant and Equipment	Y	Only required to smooth out annual fluctuations associated with the major plant replacement program. Review with LTFP.
Public Open Space	N	Rescinded 5 July 2011
State Gymnastics Centre	Y	Purpose needs to be amended to align with the restriction imposed through the Lease.
Strategic Waste Management	Y	Transfers to the Reserve should be based on the MRC rent – currently $58,000.
Tamala Park Land Sales	Y	The Tamala Park land sale activity has a finite life, with development and sales due to be finalised in 2027/28. Revenue should be treated as extraordinary and applied to deliver strategic benefit. The LTFP currently identifies a proportion of these funds will be used in 2019/20 on debt reduction.
Underground Power	Y	No projects currently listed in LTFP. Review once a formal position is developed.
Waste Management Plant and Equipment	Y	Only required to smooth out annual fluctuations associated with the major plant replacement program. Review with LTFP.

Further work on the LTFP (including 10 year capital works program) and Asset Management Plans should provide clarification in respect to the extent of the City’s liabilities, which will then inform the level of funding required, including reliance on Reserves. It is important to note, that it should be the liability that drives the required funding level, not the reverse.

To progress, it is proposed that in conjunction with the adoption of the Policy, approval will be sought to:

1. Rescind/close the following Reserves and transfer the remaining balances to the Asset Sustainability Reserve:

Reserve	Reason/Justification	Balance
Administration Centre	No longer required, use Asset Sustainability Reserve	$1,156
Aged Person and Senior Citizens	No longer required	$0
Capital	Not specific, no linkage to liabilities in LTFP	$8,501
Electronic Equipment	Minor liability, use Asset Sustainability Reserve	$54,175
Parking Funded Sustainable Transport Initiatives	Not specific, no linkage to liabilities in LTFP	$0
Parking Funded Sustainable Transport Initiatives	No linkage to liabilities in LTFP	$0
Perth Oval	No longer required	$0

2. Amend the purpose of the following Reserves: as detailed below could be closed.

Title and Current Purpose

Proposed Purpose

Cash-in-Lieu of Parking

Loftus Community Centre

For the redevelopment of the Centre, including upgrade / renovation / maintenance / repairs and replacement of major items of plant, equipment, fixtures and fittings.

For the purpose of capital improvements, including replacing major items of plant and equipment or renewal and modifications to the Centre.

Loftus Recreation Centre

For the upgrade / renovation / maintenance / repairs of the centre and the purpose of replacing major items of plant, equipment, fixtures and fittings.

For the purpose of capital improvements, including replacing major items of plant and equipment or renewal and modifications to the Centre.

Parking Facility

For the:

· purchase, maintenance and operations of parking ticket machines;

· provision and improvement of parking information systems;

· security lighting, improved pathways and associated infrastructure to access parking areas;

and associated works.

For the:

· purchase and replacement of parking ticket machines;

· provision and improvement of parking information systems;

· security lighting, improved pathways and associated infrastructure to access parking areas;

and associated works.

State Gymnastics Centre

For the purpose of capital improvements, including replacing major items of plant and equipment or renewal and modifications to the Centre.

Following adoption of the Policy, Administration will progress development of the procedures and guidelines. In addition, further review of the funding requirements and funding linkages will be incorporated into and informed by the development of the 2018/19 Budget and review of the LTFP.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

11.5 Amended Purchasing Policy 1.2.3

TRIM Ref: D18/14473

Authors: Kara Davies, Administration Officer Corporate Services

John Paton, Special Projects Officer

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Current Purchasing Policy 1.2.3

2. Revised Purchasing Policy 1.2.3

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES that at the conclusion of the Local Public Notice period, no public submissions were received; and

2. ADOPTS the revised Purchasing Policy 1.2.3 as detailed in Attachment 2.

Purpose of Report:

To report back to Council after the public consultation period and seek approval of the revised Purchasing Policy 1.2.3.

Background:

The current version of the Purchasing Policy (Attachment 1) was due for review in February 2017.

Amendments to the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (Regulations) were published in the Government Gazette on 18 September 2015, effective from 1 October 2015. Key changes included:

· An increase of the tender threshold from $100,000 to $150,000;

· Require a Local Government’s purchasing policy to specify the minimum number of oral or written quotes required for purchases under the tender threshold;

· A new division in the Regulations for the introduction of ‘Panels of Pre-Qualified Suppliers’;

· Introduction of additional tender exemptions for Australian Disability Enterprises and Registered Aboriginal Enterprises; and

· Technical drafting amendments to improve understanding of the Regulations.

Administration reviewed the current policy to make use of the above provisions, to endeavour to strike a balance between controls and efficiency. Generally the goal for policies is to be one or two pages. However, in this case the requirements that need to be covered to meet the provisions of the Regulations result in a longer policy.

Following a full review, Administration submitted a revised draft of the Policy to the June Council Workshop and subsequently to the Audit Committee meeting held 18 July 2017.

As an outcome of the Audit Committee meeting held 18 July 2017, a marked up copy of the proposed changes to the Policy was presented to Council on 12 December 2017. As a result Council resolved in part:

1. APPROVES for the purpose of community consultation, the revised Purchasing Policy 1.2.3 as detailed in Attachment 2;

2. NOTES that a subsequent report will be presented to Council at the conclusion of the Local Public Notice period, along with any public submissions received; and

Details:

Part 4 of the Regulations deals with Provision of Goods and Services, including the requirement to adopt and implement a Purchasing Policy.

As a result of the amendments to the Regulations, Administration reviewed its Purchasing Policy 1.2.3 and determined that the existing policy was not fully compliant when viewed without the Policy Guidelines and Procedures (currently attached to the Policy). The policy should contain the policy positions of the Council, however it is the CEO’s responsibility to establish effective systems and controls to comply with both legislation and Council policies. Therefore Administration proposes to develop a separate set of procedures to implement the revised policy.

In reviewing the Policy, the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) ‘Model Purchasing Policy’ template was used as a reference. A draft was presented to the City’s Audit Committee on 18 July 2017.

The main changes proposed to the policy were:

· A mandatory tender threshold;

· Creation of panels of pre-qualified suppliers;

· General purchasing thresholds; and

· Limits on tender exemptions.

1. Mandatory Tender Threshold

The Regulations mandate that purchases of goods or services over the value of $150,000 must be sourced via tender. In the intervening period, the City has continued to use $100,000 as its tender threshold minimum. On review, Administration is recommending increasing the minimum tender threshold to $150,000.

2. Panels of Pre-Qualified Suppliers

Part 4 Division 3 of the Regulations has been added to allow local governments to create a panel of pre-qualified suppliers. The Regulations only allow this when the purchasing policy outlines: how to establish a panel; how the panel will operate; how each supplier will be invited to quote; consistent communication with the panel; and recording and retention of quotes and purchases from suppliers. Section 5 of the draft Policy identifies the objectives of panels.

3. General Purchasing Thresholds

Section 4 of the Policy identifies purchasing requirements for various thresholds. Administration has developed a two tier table which allows different purchasing requirements for pre-qualified suppliers. This had not been addressed in the previous Policy. The intention is to offer an efficiency incentive for the use of pre-qualified suppliers. Pre-qualified suppliers include suppliers on the WALGA Preferred Supply Program; the State Government CUA; or a City appointed panel of pre-qualified suppliers.

4. Limit on Tender Exemptions

The Amendments to Regulation 11(2) allow (in most instances) an unlimited exemption from the requirement to go to tender for purchases from certain preferred suppliers. Administration is recommending to cap this exemption at $250,000. The cap is intended to ensure effective oversight of large purchases and contracts, and has been set at this level to coincide with the requirement to present to Council a Business Case.

The Audit Committee considered the draft Policy and resolved:

“That the Audit Committee SUPPORTS the draft Purchasing Policy included as Attachment 2 and RECOMMENDS the following points are addressed before being referred to Council for formal consideration:

1.1 Provide further clarification around the qualitative criteria to be used in assessing the value and competitiveness of goods or services to be acquired;

1.2 Include a provision requiring staff to request suppliers to provide their quotations in writing, noting that in any event staff will be required to create a written record of all verbal quotations received;

1.3 Expand the Objectives of the Policy to include compliance with applicable standards and codes and ensure that goods and services to be procured are necessary and fit for purpose; and

1.4 Include a provision to qualify, for the avoidance of doubt, that the purchasing requirements defined in clause 4.4 of the Policy do not exempt compliance with other relevant provisions of the Policy.”

Feedback provided by the Committee was considered and the draft policy updated to strengthen accountability and ensure good governance. A draft Policy was included as attachment 2, with the amendments arising from the Audit Committee marked up in red. In summary the main changes are:

Policy Objectives

· Additional wording regarding compliance with codes and standards; and

· Include wording that all procurement is necessary, fit for purpose and supported by an appropriate budget provision.

Value for Money

· An expended definition of value for money;

· Reinforce the requirement for an initial needs assessment to verify ongoing relevance and necessity for the procurement and mode of delivery; and

· Additional points to consider when assessing value for money.

Purchasing Requirements

· Specifying the requirement for a written record of verbal quotes; and

· Expanding the Sustainable Procurement provision to recognise the benefit from reducing consumption.

In reviewing the Purchasing Policy, consideration was also given to the following existing policies that have a relationship to the Purchasing Policy:

Policy 1.2.9 Sustainable Use of Paper, Printing and Office Products

The Purchasing Policy includes a section on Sustainable Procurement and specifies the consideration of sustainable benefits as an objective of the Policy. It is considered that this overarching principle applied across the City’s overall procurement activities removes the need for this stand-alone policy. It is therefore recommended for rescinding.

Policy 1.2.10 Commercial Dealings – Native Forest Woodchips

As with the previous Policy, it is considered that this Policy is superseded by the broader sustainability provisions in the Purchasing Policy and therefore is recommended for rescinding.

Policy 4.1.24 Legal Advice

Obtaining legal advice is considered to be an administrative process and as such should be controlled by the CEO. This Policy is therefore recommended for rescinding.

Consultation/Advertising:

A Local Public Notice and Letter to local Business & Community Groups was issued on 18 January 2018 with public submissions invited until 8 February 2018.

Legal/Policy:

Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

The following City policies have been identified as being related to purchasing:

a) Policy 1.2.9 Sustainable Use of Paper, Printing and Office Products

b) Policy 1.2.10 Commercial Dealings – Native Forest Woodchips

c) Policy 4.1.24 Legal Advice

Risk Management Implications:

High: Purchasing and supply management cuts across the entire operation of the City and all aspects of risk, including compliance, financial and reputational. This policy and associated procedures establish clear expectations to guide effective procurement practices at the City.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

“4.1.2 Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Section 1.3 (3) of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act) provides that:

“In carrying out its functions a local government is to use its best endeavours to meet the needs of current and future generations through an integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity.”

The intent of this provision, being at the commencement of the Act establishes an influence over all aspects of a local government’s operations, including procurement. The Purchasing Policy includes specific references to Sustainable Procurement to ensure principles are applied across all aspects of the City’s procurement activities.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The purchasing policy guides how procurement is to occur and has an overarching principle of achieving value for money outcomes.

Comments:

The revised policy is now in line with amendments to the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 effective from 1 October 2015 and Administration has also included a number of other amendments to the Policy that will strengthen accountability and ensure good governance.

As a result of there being no community submissions, Administration proposes no further changes and therefore approval of the revised Purchasing Policy 1.2.3 is recommended.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

11.6 Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 6 January 2018 to
1 February 2018

TRIM Ref: D18/19135

Author: Nikki Hirrill, Accounts Payable Officer

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Payments by EFT January 2018

2. Payments by Cheque January 2018

3. Payments by Credit Card January 2018

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 6 January 2018 to 1 February 2018 as detailed in attachment 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

Cheque Numbers 82004 - 82086		$116,676.90
Cancelled Cheques 82040, 82046 & 81904		-$699.00
EFT Documents 2188 - 2201		$3,389,718.11
Payroll		$1,203,692.47

Direct Debits
· Lease Fees	$0.00
· Loan Repayments	$148,527.34
· Bank Fees and Charges	$15,509.53
· Credit Cards	$4,888.20
Total Direct Debit		$168,925.07
Total Accounts Paid		$4,878,313.55

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 6 January 2018 to 1 February 2018.

Background:

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (Delegation No. 1.14) the exercise of its power to make payments from the City’s Municipal and Trust funds. In accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be provided to Council, where such delegation is made.

The list of accounts paid must be recorded in the minutes of the Council Meeting.

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 6 January 2018 to 1 February 2018, covers the following:

FUND	CHEQUE NUMBERS/ PAY PERIOD	AMOUNT
Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)
Cheques	82004 - 82086	$116,676.90
Cancelled Cheques	82040, 82046 and 81904	-$699.00
EFT Payments	2188 - 2201	$3,389,718.11
Sub Total		$3,505,696.01

Transfer of Payroll by EFT	09/01/18	$559,045.66
	10/01/18 Ad hoc	$718.24
	10/01/18 Ad hoc	$225.76
	24/01/18	$643,702.81
	January 2018	$1,203,692.47

Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits
Lease Fees		$0.00
Loan Repayments		$148,527.34
Bank Charges – CBA		$15,509.53
Credit Cards		$4,888.20

Total Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits (Sub Total)		$168,925.07

Total Payments		$4,878,313.55

consulting/advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Regulation 12(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

12. Payments from municipal fund or trust fund, restrictions on making

(1) A payment may only be made from the municipal fund or the trust fund —

· if the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from those funds — by the CEO; or

· otherwise, if the payment is authorised in advance by a resolution of Council.

(2) Council must not authorise a payment from those funds until a list prepared under regulation 13(2) containing details of the accounts to be paid has been presented to Council.

Regulation 13(1) and (3) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

13. Lists of Accounts

(1) If the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the municipal fund or the trust fund, a list of accounts paid by the CEO is to be prepared each month showing for each account paid since the last such list was prepared -

· the payee’s name;

· the amount of the payment;

· the date of the payment; and

· sufficient information to identify the transaction.

(3) A list prepared under sub regulation (1) is to be —

· presented to Council at the next ordinary meeting of Council after the list is prepared; and

· recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Management systems are in place to establish satisfactory controls, supported by internal and external audit function.

Strategic Implications:

Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

“4.1 Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management:

4.1.2 Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner;

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

All Municipal Fund expenditure included in the list of payments is in accordance with Council’s Annual Budget.

Comments:

If Councillors require further information on any of the payments, please contact the Manager Financial Services.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

11.7 Investment Report as at 31 January 2018

TRIM Ref: D18/20273

Author: Sheryl Teoh, Accounting Officer

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Investment Report

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 31 January 2018 as detailed in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the level of investment funds and operating funds available, the distribution of surplus funds in investments and the interest earned to date.

Background:

Surplus funds are invested in Bank Term Deposits for various terms, to maximise investment returns in compliance with good governance, legislative requirements and Council’s Investment Policy No 1.2.4. Details are attached in Attachment 1.

The City’s investment portfolio is diversified across several financial Institutions in accordance with the Investment Policy.

Details:

Total funds held for the period ended 31 January 2018 including on call in the City’s operating account were $39,498,741; compared to $34,645,041 for the period ending 31 January 2017.

Total Investments for the period ended 31 January 2018 were $36,147,499 as compared to $37,065,389 for the prior month end; and $33,201,749 for the period ending 31 January 2017.

Investment comparison table:

Month	2016/17		2017/18
Ended	Total Funds Held	Total Investments	Total Funds Held	Total Investments
July	$19,683,412	$18,420,252	$23,433,728	$21,212,649
August	$26,167,645	$22,573,297	$30,161,860	$27,714,651
September	$36,754,571	$34,302,896	$40,305,364	$37,944,911
October	$37,581,885	$34,521,542	$41,087,462	$38,947,823
November	$37,034,885	$35,775,011	$41,716,473	$39,482,047
December	$33,692,431	$31,165,443	$38,768,084	$37,065,389
January	$34,645,041	$33,201,749	$39,498,741	$36,147,499
February	$34,028,716	$32,316,251
March	$32,070,200	$31,424,409
April	$30,661,122	$26,206,328
May	$27,412,051	$25,718,292
June	$24,670,461	$23,533,279

Total accrued interest earned on Investments as at 31 January 2018:

	Adopted Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	% of YTD Budget
Municipal	$414,960	$268,150	$302,894	112.96%
Reserve	$258,420	$138,800	$141,498	101.94%
Sub-total	$673,380	$406,950	$444,392	109.20%
Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$82,855	0.00%
Total	$673,380	$406,950	$527,247	129.56%

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust were not included in the 2017/18 Budget as actual interest earned is held in Trust and restricted.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

The power to invest is governed by the Local Government Act 1995.

6.14. Power to invest

(1) Money held in the municipal fund or the trust fund of a local government that is not, for the time being, required by the local government for any other purpose may be invested as trust funds may be invested under the Trustees Act 1962 Part III.

(2A) A local government is to comply with the regulations when investing money referred to in subsection (1).

(2) Regulations in relation to investments by local governments may —

(a) make provision in respect of the investment of money referred to in subsection (1); and

[(b) deleted]

(c) prescribe circumstances in which a local government is required to invest money held by it; and

(d) provide for the application of investment earnings; and

(e) generally provide for the management of those investments.

Further controls are established through the following provisions in the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996:

19. Investments, control procedures for

(1) A local government is to establish and document internal control procedures to be followed by employees to ensure control over investments.

(2) The control procedures are to enable the identification of —

(a) the nature and location of all investments; and

(b) the transactions related to each investment.

19C. Investment of money, restrictions on (Act s. 6.14(2)(a))

(1) In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

(a) an authorised deposit‑taking institution as defined in the Banking Act 1959 (Commonwealth) section 5; or

(b) the Western Australian Treasury Corporation established by the Western Australian Treasury Corporation Act 1986;

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

(2) When investing money under section 6.14(1), a local government may not do any of the following —

(a) deposit with an institution except an authorised institution;

(b) deposit for a fixed term of more than 3 years;

(c) invest in bonds that are not guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government, or a State or Territory government;

(d) invest in bonds with a term to maturity of more than 3 years;

(e) invest in a foreign currency.

To further guide the prudent and responsible investment of the City’s funds, Council has adopted the City’s Investment Policy No. 1.2.4, which delegates the authority to invest surplus funds to the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate.

Administration has established guidelines for the management of the City’s investments, including the following ratings table:

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Direct Investments Maximum % with any one institution		Managed Funds Maximum % with any one institution		Maximum % of Total Portfolio
Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Policy	Actual	Policy	Actual	Policy	Actual
A1+	30%	11.9%	30%	Nil	90%	39.9%
A1	25%	0.0%	30%	Nil	80%	0.0%
A2	20%	17.4%	n/a	Nil	60%	60.1%

*As per subtotals on Attachment 1

Risk Management Implications:

Moderate: Funds are invested with various financial institutions with high Long Term and Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s or equivalent), obtaining more than three quotations for each investment. These investment funds are spread across various institutions and invested as Term Deposits from one to twelve months to reduce risk.

Strategic Implications:

In keeping with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

“4.1 Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management:

4.1.2 Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner;

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The financial implications of this report are as noted in the details and comments section of the report. Overall the conclusion can be drawn that appropriate and responsible measures are in place to protect the City’s financial assets and to ensure the accountability of management.

Comments:

The funds for investment have decreased from the previous period due to excess of payments to creditors and other expenditures over cash receipts, which is the expected seasonal cash flow.

Total funds invested in A2 category exceed 60% by 1 basis point, at the end of January 2018. This is due to decrease in total invested funds after the investments maturing with banks in A1+ category have progressively been withdrawn for cash flow purposes.

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.58% for current investments including the operating account; and 2.64% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days Accepted Bill rate for January 2018 is 1.79%.

As at 31 January 2018, the City’s total investment earnings excluding the Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust income exceed the year to date budget estimate by $37,442 (9.20%).

In response to the amendment to the City’s Investment Policy that provided preference “is to be given to investments with institutions that have been assessed to have no current record of funding fossil fuels, providing that doing so will secure a rate of return that is at least equal to alternatives offered by other institutions”, Administration has actively sought investment offerings from relevant institutions.

It is of note that in September 2017, the City added Bank Australia Ltd to the list of non-fossil fuel lending institutions utilised and further funds were invested with them during this reporting period. As a result, 60.0% of the City’s investments were held in non-fossil fuel lending institutions as at 31 January 2018.

The investment report (Attachment 1) consists of:

· Investment Performance & Policy Compliance Charts;

· Investment Portfolio;

· Investment Interest Earnings; and

· Current Investment Holding.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

11.8 Mid-Year Review of the Annual Budget 2017/18

TRIM Ref: D18/11783

Author: Vanisha Govender, Manager Financial Services

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type

2. Rate Setting Statement

3. Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type - List of Budget Amendments

4. Operating Projects and Programs - List of Budget Amendments

5. List of Capital Expenditure Amendments

6. Reserve Schedule

RECommendation:

That Council ADOPTS BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the Mid-Year Budget Review of the Annual Budget for the 2017/18 financial year as detailed in the report and Attachments 1 – 6, in accordance with Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the Mid-Year Review of the Annual Budget for 2017/18.

Background:

The Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires that a Local Government undertakes a review of its annual budget for that year between 1 January and 31 March.

The budget review must then be submitted to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (the Department) within 30 days after Council has made its determination. The Department does not prescribe a format for the budget review, however the Regulations prescribe that the review must –

(a) consider the local government’s financial performance in the period beginning on 1 July and ending no earlier than 31 December in that financial year; and

(b) consider the local government’s financial position as at the date of the review; and

Council is to consider the review and is to determine whether or not to adopt the review, any parts of the review or any recommendations made in the review.

Details:

A detailed review has been undertaken based on the actual year to date income and expenditure to 31 December 2017, with projections made to forecast the likely end of financial year result compared to the current budget.

Based on the input from across the organisation, various adjustments have been proposed. The ‘Proposed Revised Budget 2017/18’, which is inclusive of previously endorsed amendments by Council together with recommendations from the Mid-Year Review, is detailed in the following attachments:

· Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type (Attachment 1); and

· Rate Setting Statement (Attachment 2).

For comparison purposes, the above statements include the following data:

· Previous Year Actuals 2016/17: the actual income and expenditure for the previous financial year;

· Adopted Full Year Budget 2017/18: the original 2017/18 budget adopted by Council in July 2017;

· Current Full Year Budget 2017/18: the original budget, including amendments subsequently approved by Council;

· YTD Actuals at December 2017: actual income and expenditure recorded for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2017; and

· Revised Budget Change 2017/18: the net difference between the Current Full Year Budget 2017/18 and the Proposed Revised Budget 2017/18.

The forecast Net Result from Operations, as detailed in Attachment 1, is a deficit of $3.16 million, prior to adding back non-operating grants and subsidies and profit on disposal of assets of $3.15m. The revised overall forecast Net Result from Operations is a deficit of $16,000, compared to the Current Budget forecast Net Result of a $1.03 million surplus. This variance is primarily comprised of increases in:

· Depreciation arising from asset revaluations, which are a statutory requirement as per AASB13 – Fair Value Measurement, and the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 ($582k/6% increase);

· Employee Costs ($170k/0.06% increase);

· Materials and Contracts expenses ($172k/.09% increase); and

· Insurance Costs largely arising from back dated workers compensation premiums ($100k/11% increase).

Details of proposed revisions to the operating budget are listed on Attachment 3 – Supporting Schedule: Nature and Type Amendments.

As a result of the review of the Capital Works Program, the Proposed Revised Capital Budget is projected to be $12.69 million, which represents a reduction of $0.68 million. Full details of capital projects where the budget is being reviewed are listed on Attachment 5 – Supporting Schedule: Capital Expenditure Amendments.

Budgeted Transfers from Reserves is proposed to be reduced by $189,777 linked to the reduction in capital works. Transfers to Asset Sustainability Reserves are forecast to increase by $551,301.

Surplus

As shown in the Rate Setting Statement (Attachment 2), the overall impact of all proposed Budget amendments is a projected balanced budget as at the end of the 2017-18 financial year.

Consultation/Advertising:

The Chief Executive Officer, Directors and Managers, as well as other Officers where required, have been consulted and involved in the detailed review.

Legal/Policy:

The Local Government Act 1995 requires that a budget review be undertaken each financial year, in the period between January and March of a financial year.

Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires:

(1) Between 1 January and 31 March in each financial year a local government is to carry out a review of its annual budget for that year.

(2A) The review of an annual budget for a financial year must –

(a) consider the local government’s financial performance in the period beginning on 1 July and ending no earlier than 31 December in that financial year; and

(b) consider the local government’s financial position as at the date of the review; and

(c) review the outcomes for the end of that financial year that are forecast in the budget.

(2) Within 30 days after a review of the annual budget of a local government is carried out it is to be submitted to the council.

(3) A council is to consider a review submitted to it and is to determine* whether or not to adopt the review, any parts of the review or any recommendations made in the review.

*Absolute majority required.

(4) Within 30 days after a council has made a determination, a copy of the review and determination is to be provided to the Department.

RISK MANAGEMENT:

High: Failure to undertake a Budget review in the period between January and March in any financial year would be a breach of the Local Government Act (1995).

Strategic Implications:

Plan for the Future Strategic Plan 2013-2023 - Key Result Area 4 – Leadership, Governance and Management:

“4.1 Provide Good Strategic Decision-Making, Governance, Leadership and Professional Management:

4.1.2 Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner

(a) Continue to adopt best practise to ensure the financial resources and assets of the City are responsibly managed…”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Other than Depreciation, which is related to asset valuations, there were no significant budget adjustments, and no material financial implications for the City.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 6 March 2018

13.2 Community Budget Submissions 2018/19

TRIM Ref: D18/28792

Author: Len Kosova, Chief Executive Officer

Authoriser: Len Kosova, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation:

That Council ENDORSES the six key priorities below, arising from the Imagine Vincent community engagement campaign, as the basis for inviting Community Budget Submissions for 2018/19:

· Enhanced Environment – The natural environment contributes greatly to our inner-city community. We want to protect and enhance it, making best use of our natural resources for the benefit of current and future generations.

· Accessible City – We want to be a leader in making it safe, easy, environmentally-friendly and enjoyable to get around Vincent.

· Connected Community – We are a diverse, welcoming and engaged community. We want to celebrate what makes us unique and connect with those around us to enhance our quality of life.

· Thriving Places – Our vibrant places and spaces are integral to our identity, economy and appeal. We want to create, enhance and promote great places and spaces for everyone to enjoy.

· Sensitive Design – Design that ‘fits in’ to our neighbourhoods is important to us. We want to see unique, high quality developments that respect our character and identity and respond to specific local circumstances.

· Innovative & Accountable – The City of Vincent has a significant role to play in supporting our community to realise its vision. To achieve this, we will be an innovative, honest, engaged and responsible organisation that manages resources well, communicates effectively and takes our stewardship role seriously.

Purpose of Report:

To consider endorsing the six key priorities which arose from the Imagine Vincent Strategic Community Plan (SCP) engagement campaign conducted in the latter half of 2017 as the basis for inviting community budget submissions for 2018/19.

Background:

Council previously invited community budget submissions to inform the early development of the 2016/17 and 2017/18 annual budgets. This approach was taken as an alternative to the City’s past practice of advertising an already completed draft budget at the end of the budget preparation process, which typically yielded very little community feedback.

Both previous community budget submission processes were framed around annual priorities adopted by Council as an interim measure, pending the definition of clearer community priorities through the review of the City’s current of the Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023. Further background on the origins of the community budget submission process is provided in reports presented to Council on 7 February 2017 (Item 9.5.1) and 19 April 2016 (Item 5.1).

The 2016/17 community budget submission process was framed around 10 priority areas adopted by Council at the time, while the 2017/18 submission process was framed around eight strategic priorities

Council last invited community budget submissions (for the 2017/18 budget) at its meeting on 7 March 2017 (Item 9.5.3). In response, the City received a total of 55 individual community budget submissions raising 64 proposals for consideration. This represented an improved response on the same exercise undertaken in 2016/17, which yielded 50 submissions raising 60 proposals.

When considering the 2017/18 community budget submissions at its meeting on 25 July 2017 (Item 13.2) Council:

· Supported (fully or partly) approximately 45% of all proposals for implementation in 2017/18 with an estimated value of $400,000;

· Supported (fully or partly) or deferred consideration of more than 28% of proposals for financial years beyond 2017/18; and

· Did not support approximately 27% of proposals.

This represented a significant Council investment of more than $10 on average for every person in the City of Vincent, towards delivering on community budget submissions in 2017/18 alone.

Details:

The Imagine Vincent SCP engagement campaign was conducted in the latter half of 2017 and gathered vital community feedback to inform preparation of the City’s new SCP. Six very clear community priorities have emerged from the feedback received through Imagine Vincent, as follows:

· Enhanced Environment – The natural environment contributes greatly to our inner-city community. We want to protect and enhance it, making best use of our natural resources for the benefit of current and future generations.

· Accessible City – We want to be a leader in making it safe, easy, environmentally-friendly and enjoyable to get around Vincent.

· Connected Community – We are a diverse, welcoming and engaged community. We want to celebrate what makes us unique and connect with those around us to enhance our quality of life.

· Thriving Places – Our vibrant places and spaces are integral to our identity, economy and appeal. We want to create, enhance and promote great places and spaces for everyone to enjoy.

· Sensitive Design – Design that ‘fits in’ to our neighbourhoods is important to us. We want to see unique, high quality developments that respect our character and identity and respond to specific local circumstances.

· Innovative & Accountable – The City of Vincent has a significant role to play in supporting our community to realise its vision. To achieve this, we will be an innovative, honest, engaged and responsible organisation that manages resources well, communicates effectively and takes our stewardship role seriously.

The SCP is in its final drafting stages and due to be presented to Council in April 2018 for the purpose of public advertising. This will enable the new SCP to be adopted and in place early in the new financial year.

It is intended that the abovementioned six community priorities form the basis for inviting community budget submissions in 2018/19. Whilst it is accepted that some of the words associated with these priorities might change as a result of Council’s formal consideration of the draft SCP before or after public advertising, the nature and intent of the priorities has been directly derived from community feedback and is not expected to change materially.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community budget submissions will be invited during a three week period commencing in mid-March 2018 by way of:

· Promotion through the City’s e-newsletter, website and social media channels;

· Publication in both local newspapers before and during the submission period; and

· Display of posters at the City’s Administration & Civic Centre, Library & Local History Centre and Beatty Park Leisure Centre.

In order to lodge a submission, community members will need to summarise their proposal and explain how it would contribute to achieving one or more of the six key priorities derived from the Imagine Vincent community engagement campaign. In doing so, submitters will need to identify which single theme their proposal is most aligned to and which other themes it could incidentally benefit and why.

The submission process will be conducted entirely on-line via the City’s Engagement HQ website, as used through Imagine Vincent and in other more recent engagement activities such as the Charles Veryard Reserve Dog Exercise Area Survey. City staff will be available to assist any community members in making a submission if they are unable to do so themselves via the website.

To streamline the evaluation process and standardise the volume and variability of information provided in submissions, it is proposed to apply the following word limits on the website lodgement page:

· Summary of the proposal, including its key elements and estimated funding impact – 300 words;

· Explanation of how the proposal would contribute to one of the six key themes from Imagine Vincent – 300 words;

· Explanation of how the proposal would contribute incidentally to other key themes (if) selected by the submitter – 150 words.

This approach will ensure greater parity between submitters with varying resources and will require submitters to clearly articulate their proposal and its benefits, thus enabling swifter and simpler consideration and reporting of submissions back to Council.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: The invitation for community budget submissions provides all members of the Vincent community with a meaningful opportunity to contribute to development of the City’s current and future annual budgets in order to assist with the achievement of Council’s adopted Strategic Priorities for the year ahead.

It is proposed that the community budget submission process could be incorporated into the annual review of the City’s Corporate Business Plan or the biennial review of the Strategic Community Plan, which is scheduled for adoption in mid-2018.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

“4.1 Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management;” and in particular;

4.1.2 Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner;”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The community budget submission process has proven to be a worthwhile and well-received input into the early development of the City’s Annual Budget. New community budget submissions will, if supported, have a financial impact in 2018/19 or beyond. Meanwhile, community budget submissions from 2017/18 that were scheduled for implementation or consideration in 2018/19 will also need to be re-evaluated in the context of new submissions received.

Comments:

It is recommended that Council endorses the six community priorities raised through the Imagine Vincent community engagement campaign as the basis for inviting community budget submissions as an early input to the budget development process, in lieu of advertising a draft budget at the end of the budget development process.